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 Entry Clearance Officer has been granted permission to challenge the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Ghani who allowed an appeal under Article 8 by the respondent, a national of Sri Lanka who was born in May 2013. I shall refer to the respondent as the claimant and as he is a minor I make an order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him.
His father a British citizen lives in the United Kingdom. The claimant�s mother is a national of Sri Lanka and she lives with the claimant in Colombo. The couple married in August 2012 in Sri Lanka after which she was granted entry clearance twelve months later to enter the UK. At the time she applied for entry clearance she was pregnant with the claimant who as I have observed above was born in May 2013.
The Entry Clearance Officer refused the claimant�s application on 27 February 2014 followed by a further decision dated 17 July 2014. The reason for the first decision was a failure to meet the income threshold under the relevant provision of Appendix FM. Although the claimant�s mother had been issued with entry clearance, the Entry Clearance Officer contended she was still subject to UK immigration control and it was incumbent upon the sponsor to show a gross annual income of �22,400. The sponsor�s income did not meet this threshold based on the documents that had been submitted.
The appeal by the claimant was against the first decision on grounds that the relevant minimum income threshold had been met. A report from Environmental Health Management Service Consultants was referred to in respect of the accommodation. It is also argued that the Entry Clearance Officer had failed to consider the child�s best interests and furthermore it is argued that the decision was contrary to Article 8.
The judge noted that it was accepted on behalf of the claimant that he was unable to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules and wished solely to rely on Article 8.
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.