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.
I have already issued two Preliminary Decisions and Directions in this matter. As the second dated 22 July 2013 contained the substantive part of the first dated 26 February 2013, I include here only the second, which stated as follows:
I made a preliminary decision and direction in this matter on 26 February 2013 which stated as follows:
The appellant applied on 3 April 2012 for further leave to remain as a Tier 1 Post Study Work Migrant. On 15 June 2012 he was awarded a BSc in Computing by the University of East London. His application was refused on 27 September 2012. His substantive appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge C J Lloyd in a determination dated 17 December 2012. It was found that the appellant had not obtained his degree within the 12 months prior of the date of his application.
This appeal is on all fours with the case of Khatel and others (s85A; effect of continuing application) [2013] UKUT 44 (IAC) . It is the preliminary view of the Tribunal that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal on the substantive variation of leave to remain appeal discloses an error on a point of law should be set aside and remade as allowed.
The First-tier Tribunal was correct to find the Section 47 removal decision not in accordance with the law and that part of the decision should stand.
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.