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 matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and whether the decision needs to be set aside.
             In the grounds of appeal and in oral submissions from Mr Parva it is argued for the Secretary of State in short summary as follows.
             At the end of the hearing I informed the parties that I found that there was no material error of law, but gave no oral decision and set out my reasoning below.
"a person who has satisfied the Secretary of State by evidence provided that they are (and for the relevant period have been), or (as the case may be) for the relevant period they were:
(a) resident for a continuous qualifying period in the UK which began before the specified date and throughout which the following criteria are met:
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.