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: Ms E Daykin, Counsel instructed by Immigration Point Legal Services
2.� Paragraph 28 of HC 510 does not require a person who had been given leave as a businessman to demonstrate as a pre-condition for the exercise of discretion that in each or any year in which they had been given leave in that capacity they had complied with� particular requirements of paragraph 21. Those requirements are directly relevant only to the first application for permission to remain and the first extension of stay.
3.� There is no precise code in HC 510 distinguishing between maintenance and accommodation and precluding third party contributions to living expenses.
This is the Secretary of State�s appeal against the decision of Immigration Judge Callow given on 3 September 2010 whereby he allowed the appeal of the appellants against the Home Office decision 1 February 2010 refusing indefinite leave to remain.
The appellant established herself as a self-employed provider of domestic services as cleaner, housekeeper and baby-sitter. After that initial grant of leave the second appellant was granted entry clearance as a spouse to join his wife in April 2006 with leave to remain until the same date in January 2007. The second appellant was admitted without terms restricting his ability to take employment. The leave to remain on both appellants was extended on 21 April 2007 until 3 January 2010.
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.