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 respondent has been granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal which allowed the appellants' appeals against the refusal of entry clearance as a spouse and child.
At the hearing before me the appellants were not legally represented. However, the appellants' former legal representatives wrote to the Tribunal by letter dated 22 October 2015 stating as follows:
"We refer to the above appeal and to the response filed in relation to it on behalf of the (appellants) respondents, on 24 September 2015.
Our instructions in this matter, on behalf of the (appellants) respondents, come via their sponsor. He has since instructed us that he no longer wishes to oppose the (respondent's) appellant's appeal, and that he wishes to withdraw any cross-appeal on behalf of the (appellants) respondents, such that might be contained within their response that was filed on 24 September.
The sponsor, Guo Ju Huang, attended the hearing. There was no Mandarin interpreter and he spoke little or no English. It was not possible to arrange for an interpreter to attend that day.
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.