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.
The sponsor and his wife are concerned for the safety of their daughters � the appellants as they do not have anyone to look after them and their safety causes them worry. The sponsor visits the appellants once a year. The appellants are financially dependant on him and are unmarried and unemployed.
The above facts have been accepted by Judge Mailer who heard their appeals against the respondent�s decision at Richmond on 2 June 2014. He dismissed the appeals for reasons set out in the determination promulgated on 11 July 2014.
On 22 August 2014 the appellants were granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Judge Levin, a Judge of the First Tier as in his view the grounds supporting the application disclosed arguable errors of law in the determination.
I am in agreement with Mrs Holmes in her description of Judge Mailer�s determination. It is a detailed and very well written determination. But that is how far our agreement goes.
�were prevented from settling in the UK. That is why the historic injustice is such an important factor to be taken into account in the balancing exercise and why the applicant dependent child of a Gurkha who is settled in the UK has such a strong claim to have his article 8(1) right vindicated, notwithstanding the potency of the countervailing public interest in maintaining of a firm immigration policy.� [41]
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.