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 appeal was reconsidered by an Entry Clearance Manager on 19 March 2015 and in the light of additional evidence, the ECM found that the financial requirement was arguably met but he upheld the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer in respect of the other issues.
The Judge then turned to consider Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and found at [22]:
" In all the circumstances, considering all of the evidence in the round and the compelling circumstances of this Appellant, I do not consider it would be reasonable to exclude her from the UK so as to prevent her enjoying a family life with her sons, their wives and her grandchildren ."
Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Easterman on 18 January 2016 on the basis that it was wholly unclear how the family life the judge found had been established had been interfered with by the current decision; that no consideration appears to have been given to the Secretary of State's right to control immigration nor to the fact that the Claimant failed to meet the Immigration Rules in the category in which she sought to come.
The judge added a further point which is this: being an out of country appeal it is unclear whether the judge's consideration of Article 8 outside the Rules has taken place against the background of the evidence of the position at the date of the ECO's decision or at the time of the hearing.
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.