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.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] ( and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified ) is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant ( and/or other person ). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
       By a decision promulgated on 12 September 2023 the Upper Tribunal found material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which allowed the appellant's appeal on human rights grounds.
       The appellant is a citizen of China who it is accepted by the respondent is a victim of modern slavery (human trafficking), although there is no conclusive grounds decision notwithstanding the reasonable grounds decision letter being dated 24 October 2018.
       Any issues in relation to the failure to provide a conclusive grounds decision has been discussed in the error of law determination and need not be repeated in this decision. The limited scope of this hearing was also defined in that determination as being the need to consider whether the appellant is entitled to remain in the United Kingdom on human rights grounds, both within and outside the Immigration Rules.
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.