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 is the appeal of the Entry Clearance Officer against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Coutts promulgated 1.12.14, allowing the claimant�s appeal appeal against the decision of the respondent to refuse him entry clearance to the United Kingdom to settle with his wife and sponsor. The Judge heard the appeal on 14.11.14.
For the reasons set out herein I find that there was an error of law in the making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that the determination of Judge Coutts should be set aside.
The application was refused on 28.2.14 because the claimant failed to meet the specified evidence requirements of Appendix FM-SE in relation to the maintenance requirements.
Judge Coutts purported to dispense with those requirements, expressing satisfaction from the sponsor�s oral evidence that the sponsor�s income met the requirements. However, the judge has no discretion to dispense with or override the mandatory financial requirements of Appendix FM-SE. To do so was an error of law such that the decision cannot stand and must be set aside to be remade.
He further wished to submit that the reason the evidence he sought to rely on was not submitted with the application, or at any time earlier than 6.2.15, was because of failure on the part of the claimant�s representatives. However, that was not put before the First-tier Tribunal and I note that there has been no Rule 24 response by the claimant making any such assertion.
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.