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 an appeal by the Appellants who are sisters and citizens of Bangladesh whose respective dates of birth are 3 August 1997, 11 December 1994 and 15 August 2001.
The Appellants applied for an entry clearance to join their parents in the United Kingdom with a view to settlement under paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules and their application was assessed under paragraph 301 of the Rules.
The decisions in relation to each of them were identical and in summary the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) was not satisfied that they were related as claimed to their Sponsor or that there would be adequate accommodation (matters that were since resolved in their favour before the First-tier Tribunal).
The ECO was further not satisfied that the parties would be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds as required under paragraphs 281(v) and 301(iva) of the Rules.
In that latter regard and in refusing entry clearance, the ECO noted that the Appellants� sister in the UK, whom I shall simply call TB received �639.04 per month or �147.47 per week. TB�s bank statements showed that she spent (as the ECO put it) �her entire income each month�. The ECO was therefore not satisfied that �her offer of support [was] realistic�.
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.