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 Appellant is a citizen of Jamaica born on 16 th December 1994. She appeals against the determination of the First-tier Tribunal dated 17 th April 2014 dismissing her appeal against the Respondent�s decision of 22 nd January 2013 refusing entry clearance to settle in the UK with her father [the Sponsor] under paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules.
Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede on 1 st August 2014 on the grounds that it was arguable the Judge failed to make clear findings on the Appellant�s circumstances at the date of the Respondent�s decision to refuse entry clearance including her relationship with her mother and, in concentrating on the issue of where she was living, failed to make findings on the Sponsor�s evidence as to his level of responsibility.
At the hearing, Mr Burrett submitted that the issue in this case whether the Sponsor had sole responsibility. However, the Judge failed to make findings in respect of the Sponsor�s responsibilities having confused the issue with where the Appellant was living. The Judge had failed to make findings on who was making decisions about the Appellant�s welfare.
Mr Burrett submitted that the Judge took into account that the Appellant was now over 18, which was irrelevant to his decision. The Judge failed to make findings on who was making decisions about the Appellant�s education and who paid the school fees. The Judge accepted that the Appellant was living with her aunt and the fact that she had given her mother�s address on the application form did not show sole responsibility. The Judge�s approach was too simplistic.
The Sponsor had decided that the Appellant should study at the University of The West Indies and he had funded her studies. He had no contact with the Appellant�s school whilst in the UK but he had visited when he went to Jamaica and he met the teachers. The Sponsor stayed with his mother when he visited and the Appellant would stay with him. The Sponsor spoke to the Appellant by telephone nearly every day using telephone cards.
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.