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 application for permission to appeal came on the papers before First-tier Tribunal Judge Cruthers on 28 th May 2015. Refusing permission to appeal he wrote that the grounds amounted to no more than an attempt to re-run the Appellant's case that was rejected by the Judge. The simple fact was that the Appellant had no CAS with which to support the application that was refused by the Respondent on 12 th May 2014. There was no basis on which the Judge could properly have allowed this appeal.
The Respondent was correctly applying the Immigration Rules. Those Rules required the Appellant to submit a CAS with his application but he could not do that. There was an added complication in this case that Radcliffe College had lost its licence. That was not the reason why the application was refused and it is something of a red herring. The point was put simply and briefly by both the Judge at first instance and by Judge Cruthers in refusing permission to appeal. It was a simple straightforward point and did not require elaboration.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error of law and I dismiss the Appellant's appeal. I make no anonymity order as there is no public policy reason for so doing.
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.