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.
              By my decision issued on 16 November 2023 (a copy of which is appended below), I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal without any findings preserved. I now re-make the decision.
              This is an appeal brought under section 82(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on the ground that the decision by the respondent dated 26 May 2021 to refuse the appellant's application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK on the basis of long residence is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it violates article 8 ECHR.
              The appellant has a business partner, Mr Shamshad, whose immigration history is in all material respects the same as that of the appellant. However, in contrast to the appellant, Mr Shamshad was granted indefinite leave to remain on the basis of long residence.
              The principal issue in dispute is the significance, for the proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR, of the respondent treating the appellant differently to Mr Shamshad.
              The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan who entered the UK in June 2010 with leave until March 2012. He was granted further leave until August 2014.
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.