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 , against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Roxane Eban), sitting at Hatton Cross on 17 April, to a family reunion appeal by the dependent wife, born 24 December 1982, and son, born 20 June 2012, of the sponsor. They are citizens of India, but he is now a British citizen.
The date of the decision under appeal was 11 March 2013, and the applications had been made on 12 December 2012; so the judge needed to consider the relevant provisions of the �new Rules�, including those set out in appendix FM-SE. She accepted his evidence that he was paid in cash; but she still needed to consider the requirements of section A1.2. The relevant ones for present purposes appear on the next page, leaving out the details; paragraph 9 refers to income from shares in a limited company, not relevant to the present case:
In respect of salaried employment in the UK (except where paragraph 9 applies), all of the following evidence must be provided:
(b) A letter from the employer(s) who issued the payslips at paragraph 2(a) confirming:
(iii) the period over which they have been or were paid the level of salary relied upon in the application; and
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.