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 Appellants, nationals of Nigeria, appealed against the Respondent's decisions dated 28 January 2016 to refuse applications for leave to remain based on human rights grounds.
Their appeals came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Telford (the Judge) on 10 July 2017, who dismissed them under the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR. Permission to appeal was given by First-tier Tribunal Judge P J M Hollingworth on 8 March 2018.
The Judge in the decision sadly makes no reference whatsoever to Section 117B(6) NIAA 2002 and simply fails in the light of the well-known case law of MA (Pakistan) [2016] EWCA Civ 705 in considering the issues of the children, the impact of the removal of the children, whether it is reasonable to expect them to leave as understood, following in the Court of Appeal's decision, in AM (Pakistan) [2017] EWCA Civ 180 .
For these reasons therefore, on the basis of the parties' acceptance that it is appropriate for me to redecide this case on basis of the findings of fact made and expressed in the decision of the Judge, I conclude that the appropriate outcome is as follows. First, the Original Tribunal's decision cannot stand. Secondly, the following decision is substituted.
No anonymity order was made, none is being requested and, having regard to the Presidential Guidance, it seems to me that none is necessary in the circumstances of this decision or indeed that written by the First-tier Tribunal Judge. Accordingly, no anonymity order is made.
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.