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 parties are as described above but are referred to in the rest of this determination as they were in the First-tier Tribunal. The appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against refusal of entry clearance as a wife and child under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. The applications were based on the sponsor�s claimed gross income from self-employment in a takeaway food business of �11,405 per annum and claimed employment at �12,000 per annum. The ECO said in each refusal decision:
... the bank statements provided do not satisfactorily reflect the claimed salary, which means I am not satisfied that your sponsor is employed as indicated. I therefore refuse your application under paragraph EC-C.1.1(d) of Appendix FM ... (E-ECC.3.1).
In his determination promulgated on 1 st September 2014 allowing both appeals Designated Judge Macdonald said at paragraph 20:
... I have from the sponsor an explanation of how he earns his money and how that money is at the necessary limit set out in the Rules. He has shown that he is paid sufficient money in terms of the Rules and explained that he has not always put that money which he has paid directly into his bank account. Against that it can clearly be seen from the bank statement referred to above that there is a direct correlation between his earnings as stated and the sums deposited in his bank.
The ECO appeals to the Upper Tribunal on grounds which quote that paragraph of the determination and continue thus:
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.