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.
For the Appellant: Mr Rudolph Spurling of Counsel, instructed by Shah Law Chambers Ltd
             The appellant appeals with permission from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her appeal against the respondent's decision on 8 February 2022 to refuse her application for leave to remain on human rights grounds. She is a Pakistani citizen.
             On 15 September 2017 the appellant entered the UK as a Tier 4 (student) migrant. That leave expired on 21 November 2018 and she has had no valid leave since then, despite making a number of unsuccessful applications to regularise her status. The respondent did not consider that the appellant fell within paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended), nor that she had demonstrated any exceptional circumstances for which leave to remain should be granted outside the Rules.
             First-tier Judge Groom dismissed the appeal, but in so doing, she failed to make a finding on family life, asserted to exist between the appellant and her UK family members, including her nieces and nephews, or on her Article 3 ECHR medical issues, both of which were 'front and centre', as Mr Spurling puts it, in his skeleton argument. There were five expert reports before the First-tier Tribunal:
•    Dr Mariam Kashmiri - psychiatrist (examined appellant 31 July 2019)
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.