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.
In ground 1, the Secretary of State argued that the FTT failed to provide adequate reasons for findings made as to the possibility of future employment for the Claimant at [21c]. In ground 2 the Secretary of State argued that the FTT was inconsistent in its consideration of EX.1 and paragraph 276ADE, finding on the one hand that there were insurmountable obstacles to family life being continued in Nigeria, and on the other hand, with her husband's help the Claimant's there would be no insurmountable obstacles to integration in Nigeria[3].
Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Nicholson on 3 June 2015 in the following terms;
"Ground 2 contends that the judge erred in making inconsistent findings in relation to insurmountable obstacles under Appendix FM and integration under paragraph 276ADE.
At paragraph 21.1.c the judge found, on the one hand, that there were insurmountable obstacles to the appellant and her spouse enjoying family life in Nigeria and, on the other, that there would be significant obstacles to integration.
Whilst the two tests are not the same it is difficult to see how obstacles which are not very significant could nonetheless be considered insurmountable and permission is granted in respect of ground 1."
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.