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 sake of convenience I shall refer to the appellant as the entry clearance officer and the respondent as the claimant.
The claimant is an Indian national, born on 20 th May 1980. Her appeal against the refusal by the entry clearance officer dated 20 th June 2013 refusing her application for an entry clearance to settle in the UK as a spouse was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Bell in a determination promulgated on 11 th April 2014.
The Judge concluded that there was a valid reason why a specified document could not be supplied. The claimant had not been able to provide payslips for January and February 2013 although still employed. He had a reasonable explanation for this, namely that he was on holiday and had already been paid holiday pay that was due in advance. He had provided evidence of his income from employment as and from April 2012. The evidence taken as a whole showed an annual income �well in excess of the required threshold.�
This was an appropriate case for discretion to be exercised under paragraph D (e) of Appendix FM-SE. 7. The Judge concluded that the entry clearance officer should have exercised the discretion differently and in the claimant's favour.
On 11 th July 2014, Upper Tribunal Judge Peter Lane granted the entry clearance officer permission to appeal on the basis that the Judge had arguably failed to give legally adequate reasons; had misapplied paragraph D (e) and had not had regard to the relevant date.
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.