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 matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and the decision should be set aside.
           Mr Parvar confirmed at the hearing that there was no rule 24 notice. He conceded that there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal for the reasons set out in the grounds seeking permission to appeal. For the reasons set out below, I find that the concession was properly made.
           I determined at the hearing that there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that the decision should be set aside with written reasons to follow.
           In the grounds of appeal the Appellant argues as follows.
       Firstly, it is argued, that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in deciding the appeal under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 ('the 2016 Regulations'). The Appellants had applied to enter the UK under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules and not under the EEA Regulations. The Appellants' rights of appeals are therefore not governed by the EEA Regulations but by the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ('the 2020 Regulations').
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.