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 was born on 17 February 2009. He applied for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as a visitor together with his mother (Naveed Sajida). Both he and his mother were refused entry clearance by the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) Abu Dhabi in decisions dated 9 June 2013. Both appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Hindson) which, in a determination promulgated on 16 April 2014, allowed the appeal of the mother (Naveed Sajida) but dismissed the appellant�s appeal on human rights grounds. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
I find that Judge Hindson, who heard the appeal in the First-tier Tribunal at Bradford, properly understood the position of the appellant. At [19-20], he wrote as follows:
I now consider the position of the second appellant. His appeal is limited to Article 8 grounds. The effect of the decision in the case of Gulshan is that the Immigration Rules are the starting point in the decision making process. Only if there are arguably good grounds for granting leave outside the Rules will it be necessary to go on to consider the position under 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.