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 respondent (hereinafter "the claimant") is a citizen of Bangladesh, born on 10 November 1979. Her husband and son (born on 16 February 2005) are British citizens living in the UK. On 10 November 2014 she applied for entry clearance to visit the UK for four weeks. Her application was considered by the appellant ("the ECO") under Paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules and refused on the basis that it was not accepted that she intended to leave the UK at the end of her visit.
The claimant appealed and her appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Shamash. In a decision promulgated on 14 October 2016, the judge allowed the appeal. The ECO appeals, with permission, against Judge Shamash's decision.
The judge found that the claimant is the mother of a minor child, aged 10 at the time of the application, who had been in the UK for under a year when the application was made. The claimant had been her son's sole carer before he moved to the UK (with his father) and he now lived with his aunt (the claimant's sister).
Having directed herself that the sole ground of appeal in visit visa cases is whether there is a breach of Article 8 ECHR and that the relevance of the Immigration Rules is to inform the Article 8 decision, the judge applied the five stage test delineated in Razgar .
The judge found that Article 8 was engaged and refusing entry clearance interfered with the claimant's family life.
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.