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 the Respondent: Miss A Mohsin, Counsel, instructed by Marks & Marks Solicitors
I see no need for, and do not make, an order restricting reporting about this decision.
This appeal comes about because the respondent, hereinafter �the claimant�, made an unsuccessful application for entry clearance as a partner under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. His application was refused on 19 June 2013 and the claimant given a document entitled �Notice of Immigration Decision - Refusal of Entry Clearance�.
The Notice begins by recording, correctly, that the claimant has applied for entry clearance as a partner under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and that the application was considered with reference to paragraph EC-P.1.1 of Appendix FM and 320(11) of the Immigration Rules.
Paragraph EC-P.1.1 of the Immigration Rules is headed �Entry clearance as a partner� and is a �catch all� provision requiring that the applicant is outside the United Kingdom, that he has made a valid application for entry clearance as a partner, that the applicant �must not fall for refusal under any of the grounds in S-EC and the applicant must meet all of the requirements of Section EC-P.
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.