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.
Although no anonymity direction was made by the First-tier Tribunal, and there was no request for anonymity, I have decided to make an anonymity order pursuant to rule 14 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 because the second Appellant is a minor.
The Appellants appeal against a determination of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Crawford promulgated on 24 th April 2014.
The Appellants are Indian citizens born 20 th August 1980 and 16 th May 2012 respectively. They applied for entry clearance to enable them to join the Sponsor L G, who is settled in the United Kingdom, and who is the spouse of the first Appellant and the father of the second Appellant.
The applications were refused on 2 nd May 2013 on financial grounds. The Respondent pointed out that the Sponsor needed to evidence a gross annual income of at least �22,400 to satisfy financial requirements set out in Appendix FM. The specified documents required by Appendix FM-SE had not been submitted with the application to prove the Sponsor�s annual gross income and therefore the applications were refused with reference to E-ECP.3.1 in relation to the first Appellant, and E-ECC.1.6 of Appendix FM in relation to the second Appellant.
The Appellants� appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, contended in summary, that the financial requirements of Appendix FM were satisfied, and that the decision to refuse entry clearance breached Article 8 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (the 1950 Convention).
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.