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 Appellant is a citizen of Cameroon born on 10 January 1947. She is sponsored by her son, Christian who is a British citizen.
Additionally, the Respondent refused the application under the general grounds of paragraph 320(7A) of the IRs because the Appellant had failed to declare that she had on three previous occasions been refused a visa by the French authorities.
On 27 January 2014, through her then solicitors, she lodged notice of appeal under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended (the 2002 Act). The grounds are generic and lacking in any particularity. They include a note that detailed grounds would follow but none have, although for the First-tier Tribunal hearing on 21 August 2014 the Appellant was represented and a bundle for her had been filed.
. .. Under the Razgar five-step approach I find there is an interference with family life between mother and son. Because I find the Appellant met the requirements of paragraph 41 and the Respondent was not entitled to refuse under paragraph 320(7A), the decision cannot be lawful, justified or proportionate.
He concluded that the decision under appeal was �not compatible with Article 8� and went on to allow the appeal and make a whole fee award on the basis that a fee award should normally follow the event if an appeal was allowed.
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.