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 first Appellant is a national of Belize and Nigeria. The second Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. The first and second Appellants are husband and wife and the parents of the third and fourth Appellants who are minor children born respectively on [ ] 2008 and [ ] 2011. The first Appellant entered the United Kingdom on 20 th April 2002 on a visit visa. He was subsequently granted on various occasions leave as a student until 31 st December 2007. His spouse, the second Appellant was granted entry clearance as a visitor valid from 4 th October 2005 for six months.
In 2013 the Appellants made applications for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of their relationship with their family and on behalf of the first and second Appellants in particular with regard to the fact that the third Appellant was 7 years old at the time of application. The Secretary of State gave due consideration to their family life under Article 8 which he noted from 9 th July 2012 fell under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. Their applications were refused on 8 th July 2013.
Thereafter application was made for permission to apply for judicial review and the proceedings culminated in a decision of the Secretary of State on 12 th May 2014 refusing the application for leave to remain on the grounds that removal would not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. A direction under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was given for removal of the Appellants from the United Kingdom.
The Appellants appealed and the appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Finch sitting at Taylor House on 6 th January 2015. In a determination promulgated on 14 th February 2015 the Appellants' appeals were allowed.
On 15 th April 2015 First-tier Tribunal Judge Lambert granted permission to appeal. Judge Lambert noted that the decision was less than logically set out and that the judge had failed to make clear at the end of the decision whether the appeals were allowed within or outside the Immigration Rules. There was no Rule 24 response.
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.