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.
Although the appellant to this appeal is, strictly, the Secretary of State I have for the sake of consistency continued to refer to the parties by their original First-tier Tribunal designations. Thus, the Secretary of State continues to be described as �the respondent�.
The Entry Clearance Officer refused the application on 18 June 2014 by reference to those Rules. The appellant�s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge S D Lloyd in a decision promulgated on 12 February 2015.
�� hinges on E-ECDR.2.5 and as to whether the appellant is unable to acquire the required level of care, even with the practical and financial help of the sponsor, because it is unavailable and there is nobody in the country who can provide it or it is not affordable�.
The judge found, after giving reasons, that �on balance� E-ECDR.2.5 was satisfied and he allowed the appeal.
The Secretary of State sought permission to appeal and permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley on 13 April 2015. The grounds impliedly accepted that E-ECDR.2.4 was met but argued that, on the evidence, the judge�s approach to E-ECDR.2.5 was wrong and that there was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for the judge to have allowed the appeal on that ground.
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.