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.
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)��������������������������������� Appeal Numbers: VA/21046/2012
The appellants appeal with permission against the determination of First-tier Tribunal N M K Lawrence promulgated on 20 December 2012 dismissing their appeals against the decisions of the respondent made on 9 May 2012, refusing their applications for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as visitors pursuant to paragraph 41, and in the case of appellants three to five, paragraph 46 of the Immigration Rules.� The respondent also refused the applications of the first and second appellants, paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules.�
The first appellant is married and is the mother of the second to fifth appellants.� In addition, she has another child, Emdadul Haque Chowdhury born in 1994.� The appellants� case is that they wish to come to the United Kingdom to visit family; the first appellant�s mother lives here as do three of her brothers and two of her sisters.� They are to be supported and accommodated whilst here by Mohammed Abdul Hannan, husband of the first appellant�s sister (�the sponsor�).
In summary, the respondent refused the applications on the basis that when an unannounced visit had been conducted to the appellants� home on 9 February 2012, it transpired that the second appellant had serious eyesight problems and was unable to continue with his studies; that the second eldest son was at home despite it being a school day, that the third child was supposed to be at school but, when an officer went to the school, could not be found; and, the two youngest children were at home.�
The respondent considered that the first and second appellants had not mentioned properly the second appellant�s eyesight problems and inability to continue with his studies, that therefore the information supplied - that he was a student - was incorrect and would thus engage paragraph 320(7A).� Further, that the first appellant had failed to provide details of her youngest child and whilst one innocent mistake might be acceptable, in combination they amounted to an attempt to mislead the respondent with regards to the appellants� circumstances in Bangladesh.
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.