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 respondent also concluded the appellant does not meet the requirements for leave to remain on private life grounds because he does not meet the requirements set out in paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules. The respondent was not satisfied that there would be very significant obstacles to the appellant's integration into India. Finally, the respondent concluded there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a grant of leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules.
            The evidence before me is set out in the appellant's bundle comprising of 29 pages that was before the FtT previously. I also have a series of further documents that were fled and served by the appellant's representatives under cover of a letter dated 24 July 2023. The additional evidence includes further witness statements made by the appellant, his partner and their two daughters. I also have a copy of the respondent's bundle and the respondent's skeleton argument dated 7 July 2023.
        The only reason given by the respondent for refusing the application for leave to remain on family life grounds in the respondent's decision dated 29 June 2021 is that the appellant does not meet the eligibility relationship requirement (E-ELTRP.1.2) because his wife is not a British citizen, present and settled in the UK, or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection. The respondent therefore considered the Article 8 claim on private life grounds only.
        The office was committed on 19 August 2017 and the appellant was convicted in June 2018 following a guilty plea. The victim did not therefore have to go through the ordeal of giving evidence. The appellant was given credit for his guilty plea in the sentence imposed. I find that the appellant satisfied the conditions of the community order that was imposed. There is no evidence that the appellant has been involved in any other criminal conduct whatsoever since that conviction.
        Although not necessary for the determination of this appeal, I find that in any event, the decision to refuse the application for leave to remain is disproportionate to the legitimate aim.
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.