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 in this case is the Secretary of State. However, I refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal where Mr Kashif, his wife and three children were the appellants.
              The judge was satisfied in relation to the sponsor's status and his relationship to the appellants, and the issue of dependency. It was the judge's conclusion that the only issue was one of legal interpretation. The judge noted at [20] that the respondent's position 'seemed to be' that the requirements of EU14 of the immigration rules are not met. The judge went on to set out the definition of dependent relative under EU14 of the immigration rules, Appendix EUSS.
              The judge considered that the skeleton argument argued that the appellant and his family met Regulation 9 of the EEA Regulations 2016 and that the appellant and his family met Appendix EU14 of the Immigration Rules Condition 1 and 2.
              Appendix EU Immigration Rules (EU14) provides including as follows:
" Persons eligible for limited leave to enter or remain as a relevant EEA citizen or their family member, as a person with a derivative right to reside or with a Zambrano right to reside or as a family member of a qualifying British citizen
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.