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 Entry Clearance Officer against a decision by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Morrison allowing an appeal by Mrs Jelena Pavlovic (hereinafter referred to as �the claimant�).
The underlying facts of this appeal were carefully set out by the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal. The claimant is a citizen of Serbia. In March 2013 she applied for entry clearance as the spouse of Aleksander Pavlovic, who has dual Serbian and British nationality. The application was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer on the basis that the sponsor could not meet the maintenance requirements of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules.
On 10 April 2015, following the hearing but before our determination was promulgated, the claimant wrote to the Upper Tribunal stating that she wished to withdraw her appeal. She and her daughter, who is a British citizen, were living in Serbia while her husband was living in the UK. The claimant�s daughter is of an age to start school and her parents would like her to start school in the UK in August 2015. Accordingly, the claimant was seeking to withdraw the appeal in order to apply again for a visa as a spouse.
Under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 a party may give notice to the Upper Tribunal of withdrawal of his or her case. Notice of withdrawal will not take effect unless the Tribunal consents to the withdrawal.
In this case the appeal to the Upper Tribunal was made by the Entry Clearance Officer after the claimant was successful in her appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Accordingly the request by the claimant to withdraw her appeal will not have the effect of halting proceedings before the Upper Tribunal. The only effect that the claimant�s withdrawal can have, if the Tribunal consents to withdrawal, is that the claimant no longer seeks to contest the proceedings before the Upper Tribunal. In the circumstances we are satisfied that this was the clear intention of the claimant�s letter of withdrawal.
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.