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, Mohsin Yakub Haji Mohmed Patel, was born on 8 January 1985 and is a male citizen of India. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge T R P Hollingworth) against the decision of the respondent dated 20 November 2013 to refuse to grant him entry clearance as a spouse under Appendix FM of HC 395 (as amended) with regard to paragraph EC-P1.1. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal in a decision dated 20 November 2014. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
Mrs Bull of Counsel, who appeared for the appellant at the Upper Tribunal hearing, told me that her client did not rely upon paragraph 2(i) of the grounds. The appellant continued to rely upon the ground in respect of paragraph 320(11) of HC 395. He contends that the First-tier Tribunal Judge erred in law by stating that the burden of proof as regards the refusal under paragraph 320(11) lay with the appellant, and not the respondent.
"I have taken into account your previous immigration history where you have repeatedly contrived to frustrate the Immigration Rules. I am satisfied you have previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of these Rules (paragraph 320(11) HC 395 as amended)."
"It is apparent from the interview referred to in the first paragraph of the respondent's reasons letter that the appellant worked for longer than the WHM [working holidaymaker] regime allowed. At least the appellant does not challenge this."
At [26] the judge noted that, "when the appellant was interviewed he apparently accepted that he had paid £500 to a dishonest agent to extend his stay in the United Kingdom [seeking leave to remain for private medical treatment]." The judge found that, "on the available evidence ... it is clear that [the appellant] knew perfectly well that what was submitted amounted to falsehood. He blames the legal advisor." At [30], the judge noted, "the appellant agreed in the interview that he had worked unlawfully. The appellant said he worked in a fabric factory."
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.