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.
This is the appeal of the Entry Clearance Officer against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Napthine promulgated 12.12.14, allowing under Article 8 ECHR the claimant�s appeal against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer, dated 23.4.14, to refuse her application made on 17.4.14 for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as a general visitor pursuant to paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules. The Judge heard the appeal on 27.11.14.
For the reasons set out below I find that there was an error of law in the making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that the determination of Judge Napthine should be set aside.
The application was refused because the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the claimant was a genuine visitor who intended to leave the UK on the conclusion of her visit. The claimant was served with a notice of limited rights of appeal.
Judge Napthine made findings that the claimant and her husband the sponsor were separated and she wanted to visit him in the UK to decide whether to establish their family life in the UK or Nigeria, where she has two daughters, the younger of which is the child of the sponsor. The claimant has a business in Nigeria, established with funds provided by the sponsor, who visits his family in Nigeria twice a year.
The judge found that the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer was a clear breach of the claimant�s and the sponsor�s rights to a family life and was �excessive and unreasonable.�
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.