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.
Whereas the respondent is the appealing party, I shall, in the interests of convenience and consistency, replicate the nomenclature of the decision at first instance.
The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal under Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on December 19, 2013. On May 23, 2014 Judge of the First Tier Tribunal Smith (hereinafter referred to as the �FtTJ�) heard his appeal. He allowed the appeal under both the Immigration Rules and article 8 ECHR in a determination promulgated on June 6, 2014.
The respondent lodged grounds of appeal on June 13, 2014 and on July 22, 2014 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Page granted permission to appeal finding it arguable the FtTJ had erred by admitting a new bank statement as further evidence and allowing it under article 8 ECHR.
The appellant did not file a Rule 24 response and was notified of the hearing date on September 23, 2014. He had not attended by 2.20pm when I called the case on and for the record he had not attended by 5pm that day.
a. The FtTJ erred in his approach. The appellant had submitted his application on October 25, 2013 and in line with paragraph 1A(h) of Appendix C of the Immigration Rules the appellant has to provide a bank statement where the end of the 28 day period will be taken as the date of the closing balance on the most recent specified document and must be no earlier than 31 days before the date of the application.
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.