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 Appellant, a national of Nepal, appealed against the ECO's decision, dated 27 June 2013 to refuse entry clearance as an adult dependent relative of an ex-Ghurkha. The refusal of 10 April 2008 was made on the basis that the Appellant did not meet the requirements of paragraph 317 of the Immigration Rules and that the ECO was not satisfied the Appellant was living alone outside the United Kingdom in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances and was mainly dependent financially on relatives settled in the United Kingdom.
The Appellant submitted an application on 18 June 2013 and refusal was made with reference to the Secretary of State's policies for dependants. The ECO decided that the Appellant had not met all the requirements of paragraph EC-DR.1.1 of Appendix FM of the immigration rules.
An appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Napthine who, on 7 November 2014, dismissed the appeal under the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 ECHR.
Permission to appeal the judge's decision was given by First-tier Tribunal Judge Levin on 7 January 2015.
At the hearing before me it was accepted by Mr Mills that a number of issues, including an assessment of the evidence, which was relevant to the issues of entry to the United Kingdom, had not been considered. He and Miss Walker therefore invited me to accept that the judge had made a number of errors of law and that the only course was for the matter to be remade.
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.