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 the appeal before me is the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD") and the respondent to this appeal is Mr Gilbert Amoako. However, for ease of reference, in the course of this decision I adopt the parties' status as it was before the FtT.  I refer to Mr Amoako as the appellant, and the Secretary of State as the respondent.  
            The judge noted, at paragraph [9] of her decision that on 29 November 2017, the appellant and his twin sister previously made an application for an EEA family permit to join the sponsor in the UK. She noted that those applications were refused by the respondent on 2 January 2018 because the respondent did not accept the appellant and his sister were related to the sponsor as claimed.
            The judge noted that DNA evidence was obtained and at paragraphs [10] and [11] she said:
"10. The DNA evidence proved the appellant's twin was the biological child of the sponsor - however, the appellant, was not the sponsor's biological son. It is possible for fraternal twins to have two different biological fathers.
Despite the DNA evidence, the sponsor regards the appellant as his son, having raised him from birth and not previously having suspected he was not biologically his."
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.