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.
The appellant in this appeal is the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The appellant are nationals of Nigeria born on 29 August 1962 and 2 April 2000 respectively. I shall however, for the sake of convenience, refer to the parties as they were referred to before the proceedings at the First-tier Tribunal.
The respondent appealed to the Upper Tribunal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge AJ M Baldwin dated 20 April 2015 allowing their appeals against the decision of the respondent dated 29 July 2014 cancelling the appellants leave on the basis that the respondent was satisfied that there were counterfeit stamps in the passports which had not been proved by the respondent.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Frankish granted the respondent permission to appeal stating that the respondent had failed to satisfy the burden of proof in respect of objections under paragraph 321 and in doing so, he completely overlooked a bundle that the respondent had filed under s108. The Judge states that if the grounds of application are made out, arguable error arises. The respondent therefore at the second stage consideration must demonstrate that those documents were filed averred in the application.
The First-tier Tribunal Judge found that by the end of the hearing it was no clearer why the respondent suspected the Ghanaian stamps in the first appellant's passport were false or why Mr Ayel ticked the box he did on the forgery assessment form.
The respondent's grounds of appeal state the following. The appellants were refused leave to remain under paragraph 321 (a) of the Immigration Rules. The respondent served a bundle in compliance with s108 of the 2002 Act. Although reference is made at paragraph 5 of the determination to the respondent's bundle, it is clear that the Judge did not have regard to this particular bundle. As a result the Judge's decision was not based on the full range of evidence behind the decision. Therefore the Judge's conclusion is unsafe and the decision will need to be remade.
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.