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 Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) appeals against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Abebrese promulgated on 20 th November 2014.
The Respondents before the Upper Tribunal were the Appellants before the First-tier Tribunal and I will refer to them as the Claimants.
The Claimants are Sri Lankan citizens born 3 rd January 1981, 25 th February 2008, and 17 th June 2010 respectively. The first Claimant is the mother of the second and third Claimants. The Claimants applied for entry clearance as family visitors. They indicated that they wished to visit the Sponsor Abdul Cadar Udayar Mohammadu Shiyam for a period of ten days. The Sponsor is the husband of the first Claimant and the father of the second and third Claimants, and is a student in the United Kingdom.
The applications were refused on 19 th December 2013. In relation to the first Claimant the refusal was based on paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, on the basis that a false bank letter had been submitted with the application. The application was also refused with reference to paragraph 41(i), (ii), (vi) and (vii). The applications of the second and third Claimants were refused with reference to paragraph 46A(i), (iv) and (v). The refusals under paragraph 41 and 46A, followed on from the primary reason for refusal, which related to the submission of a false document.
The Claimants appealed, relying upon Article 8 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (the 1950 Convention).
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.