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 to the Upper Tribunal by the Respondent, with permission, against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Raikes promulgated on 9 th September 2014 by which she allowed the Appellant�s appeal against the Secretary of State�s decision to refuse her leave to remain in the UK on the basis of her private and family life and to remove her to Zimbabwe.
For the purposes of continuity I shall refer in this determination to the Secretary of State as the Respondent and Miss Mele as the Appellant.
The facts of this case are that the Appellant entered the UK in December 2006 as a work permit dependent. She was granted subsequent extensions of leave, latterly as a dependent child over the age of 18, valid until October 2013. She made an in time application for leave to remain under appendix FM. That application was refused by the Secretary of State on 12th December 2013 on the basis she did not meet the requirements under paragraph 276 ADE and could not succeed under Appendix FM.
It is clear, as stated in the determination and in the letter of refusal, that the Appellant applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM when she could not meet the requirements as she was over the age of 18 and not dependent upon her parents. The only issue under the Rules therefore was paragraph 276 ADE.
The Appellant argued in her notice of appeal that she had established family and private life in the UK and ought to succeed on that basis.
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.