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.
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)�������������������������������������� Appeal Number: I A/01051/2013
4.����� Mr Kumi very sensibly conceded at the First-tier hearing that the appeal could not succeed under the Rules, and relied instead on Article 8.� Having first explained that Mr Keou did not fall within the Article 8 provisions of paragraph 276ADE, Judge Bennett turned to Article 8 more generally, and observed that the relatively short period during which Mr Keou�s funds fell below the �2,000 threshold was not a sufficient reason for finding that removal would be disproportionate.� There was no �near miss� principle, and in this instance the shortfall was significant.
8.����� Both representatives were also agreed upon an issue which had not hitherto been raised, namely that the decision to remove Mr Keou was unlawful : see Ahmadi [2013] EWCA Civ 512 .� Section 47 of the 2006 Act has been substituted from 8 th May 2013 with provisions for the simultaneous service of a �pre-removal decision� and a removal decision.� But prior to that date, such a procedure was unlawful.
��������� The Secretary of State�s appeal, in respect of variation of the respondent�s leave, is dismissed.
��������� The direction by the First-tier Tribunal for the grant of leave to remain is set aside.
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.