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 brief outline the background to this appeal is that the appellant entered the UK with leave as a student on 12 December 2009 and this was extended on two occasions to 11 April 2014. On 17 April 2013 she applied for a derivative right of residence as the primary carer of her child who she claimed was a British national on the basis that his father had indefinite leave to remain in the UK at the time of her birth.
The appellant appealed against this decision and at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal she gave evidence that the relationship with her child�s father had broken down and that he had divorced her in February 2012. She had formed a relationship with the landlord where she was living, they subsequently married and she was pregnant with his child. She also gave evidence about her former husband continuing to use the external mail box at her home.
At the hearing the presenting officer confirmed that the appellant�s current husband had a human rights appeal outstanding and noted that he had submitted an affidavit which corroborated key aspects of the appellant�s case [9].
�11. While I accept that the appellant is the primary carer of the British child and that the post box at her home is accessible from outside the building it was made clear in the refusal that the decision to refuse her derivative residence card did not require her or the child to leave the United Kingdom. In these circumstances the appeal must fail. Further for the same reason her Article 8 rights are not engaged at this stage.
Her claim should be considered at the same time as her current husband�s. At that hearing she may have to explain why her husband would go to the trouble of checking her mailbox for his mail rather than giving out his own arguably much more convenient address. Without such an explanation I find reason to doubt evidence that her ex-husband plays no role in the child�s upbringing. I am also surprised that she did not bring the children to the hearing alternatively made no attempt to provide alternative childcare arrangements so that her current husband could attend the hearing.�
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.