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 are nationals of India. They were born on 9 June 1997, 16 May 1999 and 11 November 2000, respectively. They are three minor siblings who applied for entry clearance to join their British mother in the UK.
These are appeals against the determination promulgated on 14 May 2014 of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gurung-Thapa which refused the appellants� appeals under the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR brought against the respondent�s decision of 25 July 2013 to refuse entry clearance as dependent children.
This appeal is misconceived. The applications were made for settlement as the children of someone settled in the UK. The relevant Immigration Rule is paragraph 297. The application form used showed that the children were applying for settlement as the children of a British national.
The applications were refused in decisions dated 25 July 2013 on the sole basis that the checks had shown that the company that the sponsor claimed to work for did not operate at the address given. The sponsor�s claimed income was therefore not accepted.
The decisions, incorrectly, phrased the finding that the financial requirements were not met in terms of the requirements of Appendix FM-SE. Those requirements did not apply here where the relevant Immigration Rule was paragraph 297 and not Appendix FM.
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.