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.
      This is the remaking decision of the appeals of Parathalingam Murugesu (Appellant 1) and Yasotha Parathalingam (Appellant 2) - both are Sri Lankan nationals born on 14 June 1948 (Appellant 1 is 75 at the date of the hearing) and 16 August 1960 (Appellant 2 is 63 at the date of the hearing) respectively.
      The Appellants both entered the United Kingdom on 22 January 2020 with visit visas; they were later granted Exceptional Assurances under the coronavirus policy at that time, until 11 January 2022. The Appellants then made applications for Leave to Remain on 10 January 2022 before the expiry of those Exceptional Assurances.
      These applications were refused by the Respondent on 30 November 2022. The Appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal which was dismissed by a panel on 4 July 2023.
      The appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the First-tier Tribunal's decision came before me on 3 October 2023. I concluded that the First-tier Tribunal panel had materially erred by failing to engage with the evidence and submissions in respect of the Appellants' daughter, Karthiga: see §23.
      I therefore set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision but maintained the panel's conclusion that the relationship between the Appellants and one of their other daughters (Sahana) constituted part of their Article 8(1) ECHR private life rather than amounting to family life.
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.