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 sake of continuity, we will refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal although technically the Entry Clearance Officer (represented by the Secretary of State) is the appellant in the appeal before the Upper Tribunal.
             The Upper Tribunal has been conscious of, and apologises for, the lengthy delay in promulgating this decision. The delay was in large part caused by an unavoidable and fairly lengthy period of fitness absence of one of the panel members, which was followed by a phased return to work.
             The original appellant (Ms Sachchinthanantham) appealed the respondent's (ECO) decision dated 16 July 2021 to refuse entry clearance under the immigration rules relating to the EU Settlement Scheme (Appendix EU (Family Permit)) (an application made under the domestic immigration rules put in place to regularise the status of those entering or remaining in the UK under EU law post-EU exit).
             The appeal was brought under The Immigration Citizens' Rights Appeals (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ('the CRA Regulations 2020'). The available grounds of appeal are: 
(i)              that the decision breaches any right which the appellant has by virtue of the Withdrawal Agreement ('WA'), EEA EFTA Separation Agreement or the Swiss Citizens' Rights Agreement; 
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.