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: Mr A Gilbert, Counsel, instructed by Tamil Welfare Association (Romford Road)
In this decision the Appellant is referred to as the Secretary of State and the Respondent is referred to as the Claimant.
The Claimant, a national of Sri Lanka, date of birth 28 February 1981, appealed against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to grant entry clearance under paragraph 319L of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (The Rules) on 20 August 2014. Her out of country appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge A C Moler (the judge) who, in a decision dated 3 July 2015, allowed the appeal under the Rules on the basis that the Claimant had satisfied the criteria for entry clearance under paragraph 319L of the Rules.
The pity of that aspect of the decision is quite simply that it left open the issue of Article 8 ECHR. It was clear to me that had the judge not made the error in relation to the English language test qualification he would have had to go on and decide the whether or not Article 8 should be looked at outside the Rules. In the circumstances therefore I am satisfied that the Secretary of State's grounds are right in challenging the judge's decision under the Rules.
To that extent therefore the Original Tribunal's decision cannot stand and the following decision is substituted. The appeal of the Secretary of State is allowed as set out below.
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.