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 2005 the mother of the first appellant, who is a child born on 27 April 2001, left Zimbabwe and came to the United Kingdom where she has now been granted discretionary leave to remain. She has not since then returned to Zimbabwe and her son, the first appellant, has since then lived with his grandmother, who is the second appellant.
In late 2012, although not apparently on the same date, the appellants both made applications for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom. The first appellant applied for settlement, to join his mother. The second appellant applied for entry clearance as a family visitor, saying that she wished to stay for 6 months for the purpose of a family visit to her daughter and others. They had both previously made similar applications and had been unsuccessful in their appeals against refusal.
It is of significance that, on this occasion, the applications were made quite separately and there was no mention in the second appellant�s application for a six month visit visa that her grandson was, at the same time, renewing his application for settlement.
The two applications were considered separately and both were refused. Both appealed against refusal to the First-tier Tribunal. The second appellant�s appeal came before Judge PJM Hollingworth on 11 November 2013. Having received oral evidence from the second appellant�s daughter, who is identified as sponsor in both applications, he became aware of the pending appeal of the first appellant and so adjourned the hearing so that both appeals came before him on 16 April 2014.
By a determination promulgated on 21 May 2014 the judge dismissed both appeals. There were separate applications for permission to appeal. On 23 June 2014 the first appellant was granted permission to appeal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Davies, mainly on the basis that although the grounds of appeal raised a claim under Article 8 of the ECHR the judge did not deal with that at all. Two days later, on 25 June 2014 the second appellant was granted permission to appeal by Designated Judge McClure, the judge observing that the two appeals needed to be considered together.
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.