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 appellants had also previously been refused entry clearance but their challenge against that refusal led to a successful appeal in 2007. A copy of the determination of Judge Neilson based in Glasgow is included in the court file.
At the hearing I heard submissions from Mr Otchere. He conceded that it was difficult to criticise the judge�s determination and accepted that the judge had considered relevant matters and had not taken account of irrelevant matters. However, he nevertheless submitted that the sponsor was settled and had sufficient resources to support the appellants. He had not been able to attend the hearing. Mr Otchere did not argue the first two points made in the grounds.
Ms Kiss responded briefly in view of Mr Otchere�s submissions. She added, however, that there had been discrepancies between the statements of the sponsor and his wife with regard to their address which gave further cause for concern and which reinforced the ECO�s refusal. She submitted that the judge had properly considered the evidence and his determination could not be criticised.
Mr Otchere stated that the sponsor and his wife were going through a divorce hence the different addresses. He accepted that this impacted upon the issue of accommodation particularly as the sponsor had failed to attend the hearing.
At the conclusion of the hearing I gave reasons as to why I intended to uphold the judge�s determination. These are set out below.
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.