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.
This appeal was brought by the appellant against the decision promulgated on 8 May 2014 of First-tier Tribunal Judge Snape which allowed the appeal under Article 8 ECHR.
For the purposes of this decision I refer to the Secretary of State as the respondent and to Mrs Kaur as the appellant, reflecting their positions before the First-tier Tribunal.
The respondent�s challenge to the decision of Judge Snape was that it failed to identify why the public interest as expressed in the requirements of the Immigration Rules, here not met, was outweighed by any other factors, nothing exceptional or unduly harsh being identified. The judge had not taken into account that the couple had chosen to live apart for many years and that the appellant could reapply for entry clearance.
It was common ground before me that although the appellant could not meet the financial requirements of the Immigration Rules as of the date of application, as required by Appendix FM, she had shown that she met them by the date of the decision.
It was also common ground that the correct date for assessing any breach of her Article 8 EHCR rights was date of decision. As above, the respondent accepted that as of the date of the decision the appellant met the Immigration Rules in full.
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.