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 Appellants are citizens of Vietnam born in 1996 and 2000. They are brother and sister. They applied for entry clearance with a view to settlement as the children of a parent given limited leave to enter or remain with a view to settlement.
The applications were refused under paragraph 301 of the Immigration Rules on 2 May 2013.
The immigration history of their mother, the Sponsor, is not in dispute. She entered the UK illegally in 2005. She did not regulate her immigration status for seven years. In August 2011 she married a British citizen. In April 2013 she was granted limited leave to remain as a spouse until 2015. In July 2011 she gave birth to a daughter by her husband. Once she had been given limited leave to remain and was able to travel she, in July 2012 visited Vietnam. On 10 October 2012 the Appellants made their applications for settlement.
The basis of the refusal by the Respondent was that the Appellants had lived from a young age in the home of their maternal grandmother. They are in full time education and live in the home of close family members with access to modern amenities. The fact that they had waited some six years before making the application indicated that they were not living in serious and compelling circumstances which made exclusion undesirable.
It was noted from an interview that their grandmother attends parent/teacher meetings and it is she who consents to them taking part in school excursions without consultation with their mother.
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.