Immigration

OA044222014

[2015] UKAITUR OA044222014United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments2015

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

This is an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Froom whereby he allowed Mr. Vincent's appeal against the Entry Clearance Officer's decision to refuse to grant leave to enter the United Kingdom as the spouse of his sponsor.

For the purposes of this decision I shall refer to the Entry Clearance Officer as the Respondent and to Mr. Vincent as the Appellant, reflecting their positions as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.

Permission to appeal was granted as it was arguable that the judge's decision that the Appellant's exclusion was not conducive to the public good was perverse and irrational.

The Appellant's representatives wrote to the Tribunal indicating that they were not instructed to attend. I considered it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in accordance with rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I heard submissions from Mr. Duffy. I reserved my decision.

Mr. Duffy relied on the grounds of appeal. Further he submitted that the refusal under the suitability criteria was a mandatory ground. In order to avoid being refused under this mandatory ground, the Appellant would have to have shown that he was not guilty of the conduct, and the judge did not seem to accept that he was not. He submitted that it was perverse and irrational that the judge should not find that the Appellant's exclusion was not conducive to the public good: the Appellant's character and conduct had to be found not to be what it was in order to avoid mandatory refusal.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

I am mindful of the case of Mukarkar [2006] EWCA Civ 1045 , in particular paragraph 40.

"Factual judgments of this kind are often not easy, but they are not made easier or better by excessive legal or linguistic analysis. It is of the nature of such judgments that different tribunals, without illegality or irrationality, may reach different conclusions on the same case [....]. The mere fact that one tribunal has reached what may seem an unusually generous view of the facts of a particular case does not mean that it has made an error of law, so as to justify an appeal under the old system, or an order for reconsideration under the new. Nor does it create any precedent, so as to limit the Secretary of State's right to argue for a more restrictive approach on a similar case in the future. However, on the facts of the particular case, the decision of the specialist tribunal should be respected. "

I find that the decision is not perverse or irrational. The judge considered all of the evidence before him, and gave reasons for his findings. The fact that another judge might have made a different decision does not amount to an error of law.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I do not set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 9 October 2015

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chamberlain

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Immigration cases

UI2025004453

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004453

UI2025003987

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025003987

UI2025004274

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004274

UI2025005447

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025005447

UI2025001383

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025001383

JR2024LON001256

[2026] UKAITUR JR2024LON001256

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Permission to appeal was granted as it was arguable that the judge's decision that the Appellant's exclusion was not conducive to the public good was perverse and irrational.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.