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 central question for my consideration is whether, having been given that assurance, it would be unjustifiably harsh to expect the appellant to return to Australia, the country of his nationality, in order to make an application for entry clearance?
             The above question arises in the context of the appellant's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 1 May 2022 to refuse a human rights claim he made in the form of an application for leave to remain under Appendix FM. The appellant's appeal against that decision was originally heard and allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lester ("Judge Lester") by a decision dated 11 November 2022. The appeal was heard under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("the 2002 Act").
             The Secretary of State appealed to this tribunal.
             By a decision promulgated on 9 September 2024, a panel of the Upper Tribunal held that the decision of Judge Lester involved the making of an error of law, and set it aside, with certain findings of fact preserved, including the finding set out at para. 1, above. A copy of the error of law decision is annexed to this decision.
             The panel proposed to remake the decision on the papers, allowing the appeal, subject to the submissions of the parties.
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.