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.
This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against a determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge S J Pacey promulgated on 13 th March 2014 in which he allowed the above Respondent's appeal, under both the Immigration Rules and on human rights grounds, against the refusal of an Entry Clearance Officer to grant him leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purposes of settlement as the spouse of his sponsor.
There are two reasons for the refusal, firstly that it was said there was no evidence provided that the marriage was valid and, secondly, it was said the Respondent cannot satisfy the financial requirements as his sponsor will need a gross income of at least �18,600 a year whereas her employment details only revealed an annual income of �5,756.29 which could not be made up by relevant savings. The letter from the sponsor�s employer did not comply with the Rules regarding the specified evidence required.
The Respondent is a citizen of Kosovo born on the 17 th August 1975. He acknowledged in the grounds of appeal that his sponsor could not meet the current financial requirements of the Rules but said that if the appeal was allowed he will enter the United Kingdom allowing his sponsor to work additional hours for, as her husband, he is able to help with childcare.
The Judge notes that the income revealed by the sponsor was �well short� of the relevant threshold contained in the Rules but indicates that that was "not the end of the matter"[10]. The Judge refers to paragraph EX.1 of Appendix FM which would allow an applicant to succeed if they have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a partner who is in the UK and is a British citizen, settled in the UK or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection, and that insurmountable obstacles exist to family life with that partner continuing outside the UK exist.
The Judge states that in his mind there are insurmountable obstacles in the case and refers to the history at paragraph 12, following which he concludes that absent any finding in relation to insurmountable obstacles it appeared to the Judge that there are, in any event, exceptional circumstances in this case.
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.