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.
The Appellant in this appeal is a citizen of Bangladesh, who was born on the 1 February, 1988. She made application for entry clearance as a partner of Mr Mohammed Bodrull Chowdhury (�the Sponsor�) under Appendix FM of Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395, as amended (�the immigration rules�).
The Respondent refused the application on the 13 June, 2013, under Appendix ECP.1.1 of Appendix FM, on the basis that the Appellant and her Sponsor had failed to demonstrate they had genuinely formed a relationship and that they had failed to demonstrate that they intended to live permanently together as their spouses. The Entry Clearance Officer was also not satisfied that the Sponsor had demonstrated that he meets the financial requirements of the rules, which show a gross income of at least �18,600 per annum.
The judge recorded at paragraph 4 of her determination that the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that there would be adequate accommodation for the appellant and sponsor. The Entry Clearance Officer subsequently reviewed the decision on the 18 February, 2014 and conceded that the relationship between the couple was subsisting. At paragraph 27 of the determination the judge found that the accommodation was adequate and decided that the issue for her, therefore, was whether the Sponsor satisfied the financial requirements to show an income of at least �18,600 per annum.
In dismissing the Appellant�s appeal, the judge failed to take into account the second income which had been pursued by the Sponsor for five months before the date of the application, because the judge found it had only been pursued for some five months and she believed that under the requirements of the rules, it had to have been established for six months. The Appellant challenged the judge�s decision and First-tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie granted permission to appeal.
At the hearing before me Mr Dewison accepted that there was a clear error of law in the judge�s determination, in that she should have taken into account the second income even though it was not for a period of six months or more. However, he suggested that the error was not material.
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.