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.
At about 10:30 am when it was convenient to hear this appeal neither the respondent nor his representatives, SZ Solicitors, had attended. Notice of hearing was sent on 5 November 2013 to the respondent�s solicitors. At their request a similar Notice was sent to the respondent in their care. I am satisfied that there was good service under the Rules of the Notice of Hearing and I decided to continue with the hearing in the absence of the respondent.
This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the respondent�s appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing to give him further leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant.
There is only one point of relevance. It is that the respondent could not satisfy the requirements of the Rules because that he could not show that he had obtained his degree within twelve months of his last being given leave. It is right to say that he had done all the work and had satisfied the university that he was entitled to a degree but the degree was not awarded until 30 May 2012. The application was made on 27 January 2012 and clearly could not have been accompanied by the certificate showing he had obtained his degree because he had not then been award his degree.
It follows therefore that although the First-tier Tribunal thought it was doing the right thing, it was doing precisely the wrong thing. It should have dismissed the appeal and I set aide the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and substitute a decision dismissing the appeal under the Rules.
On the evidence before me I find that the interference in the respondent�s private and family life consequent on removing is simply what is to be expected in the case of a person who has been in the United Kingdom since 2009. He will have established useful social relationships but these things do not count for very much in the balancing exercise. The Rules embody a policy and there is nothing unlawful about them generally or on the facts of this particular case.
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.