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 national of Nigeria. She has permission to appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Edwards to dismiss her appeal against the Respondent�s decision to refuse her entry clearance as a family member of an EEA national exercising treaty rights.
The Appellant sought leave to enter to join her mother in the UK. Her mother is also a Nigerian citizen who was formerly married to an EEA national. The Appellant submitted that her mother has a retained right of residence and that as such she is entitled, by virtue of Regulation 10(5)(c) read with Regulation 10(6), to a right of residence with her mother.
The Respondent did not accept this to be the case. The application was simply refused on the basis that the Appellant is not a family member of an EEA national exercising treaty rights.
Judge Edwards did not accept it either. He found the Sponsor to be a person with retained rights of residence but found that the Appellant could not qualify under Regulation 7. The Sponsor and her EEA spouse are long since divorced and it follows that the Appellant cannot be considered to be a family member. In respect of the argument advanced by the Appellant Judge Edwards said this:
�That leaves Regulation 10. While the Sponsor qualifies under this, I do not see that the a ppellant does. For one thing, she is not in the UK as is required by Regulation 10(5)(b) and I cannot see how she can have greater rights than those the sponsor currently enjoys�
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.