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 this appeal was the Respondent at the First-tier Tribunal hearing on 28 July 2014 before Judge R J N B Morris. However, for ease of reference, the Appellant and Respondent are hereafter referred to as they were before the First-tier Tribunal. Therefore Ms Vhuyan is referred to as the Appellant and Secretary of State is referred to as the Respondent.
The Respondent sought permission to appeal on the very narrow point that it was provided in Islam (Paragraph 245(ha): five years� study: Bangladesh) [2013] UKUT 608 (IAC) that all Tier 4 leave during which the Appellant was present in the UK fell to be counted towards the 36 month total specified under paragraph 245ZX (h). It was submitted that Islam provided that �It is the period of leave and not the actual study which is the measure for calculating the period of leave spent in the UK imposed by para 245ZX (ha).�
Permission was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge had misinterpreted the relevant rule.
A Rule 24 response was not submitted on behalf of the Appellant but Mr Islam submitted that the law had been correctly applied by the Judge.
At the outset of the hearing, I asked the parties to identify the periods of leave that were under consideration. They agreed the following:
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.