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.
In this decision I am going to refer to the parties by their designations before the First-tier Tribunal.
I have been referred by Mr Tufan, who represents the Home Office, to the requirements of the Rules and in particular the requirement that in deciding any application under Appendix FM all documents must be supplied with the application. The Entry Clearance Officer will only consider documents submitted after the application where certain exceptions apply, and it is not being suggested that those exceptions apply here.
So for those short reasons, I will allow the respondent's appeal. I find that there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and I substitute the decision of this Tribunal, which is to dismiss the appeal against the ECO's decision to refuse entry clearance. That is not to say that a fresh application supported by the correct documentation would not now succeed. Indeed, it may well succeed given that all the other requirements of the Immigration Rules appear to be met.
The respondent's appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The Upper Tribunal re-makes the decision which is to dismiss the appellant's appeal against the decision of the ECO.
No anonymity direction was made by the First-tier Tribunal and I make no anonymity direction.
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.