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 ECO appeals against a determination by First-tier Tribunal Judge Wallace, promulgated on 12 th February 2014, allowing the Appellant�s appeal against refusal of entry clearance as a spouse.
Grounds of Appeal (a) and (c) are directed against the judge�s conclusion that the marriage between the Appellant and Sponsor is a subsisting one in which they intend to live permanently together in the UK. However, the grant of permission indicated that those grounds were not promising, and Mr Mullen (rightly, in my view) did not insist upon them.
Looking at the Appellant�s circumstances, it appears that he is unable to meet the maintenance requirements of the Rule � the Sponsor was earning only �210 a week and there is a lack of satisfactory documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed job offer. The judge has failed to properly establish why it is accepted that the maintenance requirements of the Rules are met.
Whether there was enough in the case to succeed under Article 8 outwith the Immigration Rules is doubtful; but that is immaterial.
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.