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.
              This is an appeal by the appellant against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Austin (the "Judge"), dated 27 March 2024, in which he dismissed the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse leave to remain on family life grounds. The appellant applied for leave to remain as the spouse of the sponsor.
              Permission to appeal was granted by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle in a decision dated 13 June 2024 as follows:
" 2. The grounds of appeal say that the FTTJ's has erred in law by reaching an incorrect conclusion contrary to the weight of evidence, and by failing to give adequate reasons.
[15] and [16] do not relate to the appellant. It is difficult to see why they are in the decision. At [12] the FTTJ finds that the appellant's husband relies on state benefits. It is arguably difficult to reconcile that finding with the conclusion at [25] 'it having been established in the evidence that her husband has available to him the option of meeting the financial requirement of a spouse and there is therefore a reasonable prospect that she would be able to meet the minimum income threshold'
It is just arguable that the decision is tainted by errors of law. If errors of law are found, materiality will be a live issue."
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.