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.
For the Respondent: Mr A Burrett of counsel instructed by Malik and Malik solicitors
The appellant is the Entry Clearance Officer in New Delhi (�the ECO�). The respondents are citizens of Nepal born on 26 September 1983 and 12 March 2003 respectively. They are mother and son (�the claimants�). The ECO has been given permission to appeal the determination of First-Tier Tribunal Judge Kainth (�the FTTJ�) who allowed the claimants� appeals against the ECO�s decision of 11 March 2013 to refuse to grant them leave to enter the UK for settlement as the wife and son of their sponsor Mr Ramesh Prasad Adhikar (�the sponsor�) under the provisions of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules.
The ECO said that in order to meet the financial requirements of the Immigration Rules the sponsor needed a gross income of at least �22,400 per annum. After referring to the documentary evidence which the sponsor had submitted the ECO said that the claimant had not submitted the required documentation to demonstrate that he met the financial threshold. It was also said that the bank statements from NatWest bank did not adequately demonstrate his gross earnings.
The claimants appealed and the FTTJ heard their appeal on 10 January 2014. Both parties were represented and the sponsor gave evidence. The FTTJ found that the sponsor had established that he had an income in excess of the �22,400 threshold. The FTTJ allowed the appeals under the Immigration Rules and said that in the circumstances the provisions of paragraph 276ADE and other Article 8 human rights grounds had not been considered.
The ECO applied for and was granted permission to appeal arguing that the FTTJ erred in law by failing to give any consideration to the provisions of Appendix FM-SE of the Immigration Rules which set out what types of evidence were required, the periods to be covered and the necessary formats. Furthermore, there was a lack of clarity in the findings. There was no finding as to the sponsor�s gross annual income at the date of the application.
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.