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.
For convenience, I refer to the parties as they were in the First-tier Tribunal with the Secretary of State as respondent and Mr Rahman the appellant.
No anonymity direction was made in the First-tier Tribunal and none is required now.
The respondent sought permission to appeal and this was granted in the following terms:
"... It is arguable that in coming to his conclusions the Judge did not take note of the guidance in SM and Quadir [sic] [2016] UKUT 229 despite reference being made to it in the decision."
At the outset of the hearing, I showed Mr Nath the respondent's bundle in the First-tier Tribunal; it contains only the notice of liability to removal, reasons letter, notice of immigration decision and the notice and grounds of appeal together with those documents submitted by the appellant in support of his appeal. Mr Nath accepted it does not contain any evidence to support the respondent's assertion that the appellant had submitted a fraudulent certificate.
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.