Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
On 10 June 2015, the Appellants' solicitors made an application for permission to appeal out of time. The grounds in support of the application asserted that the Judge failed to consider the principles of fairness cf. Mushtaq IJR [2015] UKUT 224 (IAC) and the Judge made the finding against the first Appellant based solely on the questions and answers in the interview and the finding that she is not credible is based on minor and insignificant matters. There was no case to show that the first Appellant is unfit to study the proposed course.
In reply, Ms Fijiwala sought to rely on the rule 24 response. She submitted that the grounds amounted to no more than a disagreement with the Judge's findings of fact and Mr Kannangara had sought to attempt to re-argue the case today. It was clear that the interview record was before the Judge. Upon being shown the interview record, which was not in her papers, Ms Fijiwala accepted that at the last page of the interview record the interviewing officer did not check the "not genuine" box, but it was open to the caseworker to refuse the application.
For the reasons set out above, I find that First Tier Tribunal Judge Rodger erred materially in law in dismissing the appeal on the basis that the first Appellant was not a genuine student.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.