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 is a Nigerian national born on 26 th January 1970. On 14 th December 2013 he applied for indefinite leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant. His application was refused by the Respondent on 6 th February 2014 and directions were given for his removal under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The Respondent�s reasons for refusal are set out in a letter dated 6 th February 2014.
The Appellant exercised his right of appeal and his appeal was heard at Stoke-on-Trent on 20 th May 2014 by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Frankish. The Appellant was not legally represented. The Respondent was represented by a Presenting Officer, Mrs V Boden.
Judge Frankish notes, at paragraph 5 of the determination, that contrary to directions, the Appellant filed no witness statement or documents. The First-tier Judge admitted further documents provided by the Appellant at the hearing which are referred to later in the determination. However, the judge correctly refers to the restriction imposed by Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2009 as now incorporated into Section 85(4) of the 2002 Act.
It is apparent from paragraph 7 of the determination that Judge Frankish found the Appellant�s oral evidence to be incoherent. However, Judge Frankish managed to discern the main points which the Appellant was attempting to make which were that he had practised in the UK as a doctor in psychiatry for five years and that he ought to be allowed to continue. He had been wanting to return home but the Respondent had retained his passport. The Appellant claimed to have paid a lot of money in fees for a first-class service but had instead received what he described as a shoddy service.
An application for permission to appeal was submitted by the present representatives on 6 th June 2014. The Appellant was previously represented by Cape Hill Solicitors of 54 Waterloo Road, Cape Hill, West Midlands who had submitted the Appellant�s Notice and Grounds of Appeal. It is not entirely clear from the Tribunal file at which point the Appellant changed representatives.
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.