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 appellants, who are citizens of India and husband and wife, appealed against immigration decisions taken against each of them on 31 March 2014 together with respective forms IS151A providing for their removal from the United Kingdom.
The appellants sought permission to appeal, which was granted on 17 April 2015 by Judge Parkes in the following terms:
�1. The appellants seek permission to appeal against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hussain promulgated on 10 February 2014 whereby the appellants� appeals against the Secretary of State's decision were found to be invalid. The application is in time and is admitted.
The question of the appellant's right of appeal was raised at the hearing. The judge found that the appellants did not have an in-country right of appeal and that, whilst they remained in the UK there was no valid appeal. This was on the basis that the decision under appeal was a decision to remove them and not a decision to vary their leave, reliance was placed on Nirula [2012] EWCA Civ 1436 .
At the time of the removal the appellants had LTR. On the same day as the removal notice was served, 31/3/2014, the appellants were served with an IS151A which stated that his LTR was cancelled. It is arguable that the judge erred in relation to the variation of the appellant�s leave. The judge was right in finding that no human rights application had been made pre-decision.
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.