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 Respondents to whom I shall refer as the Applicants are citizens of India born respectively in 1930 and 1931. They are husband and wife and are the parents of the Sponsor who is their son and a British citizen. He works as a fund manager The first Applicant suffers from Parkinson�s disease and the second Applicant is his wife who is no longer able to cope with his care as his condition deteriorates.
The Sponsor is married and his wife works in the banking sector. They have two children aged at the date of the decision about 18 and about 14.
On 4 October 2013 the Applicants sought entry clearance as adult dependent relatives of their son, the Sponsor.
The husband�s application was refused under para.EC-DR.1.1(d) and E-ECDR.2.5 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules.
The ECO noted the wife was in remission from cancer of the colon and was unable to care for herself. He noted the husband�s application had been refused and refused her application under paras.EC-DR.1.1(d) and E-ECDR.2.4 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules.
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.