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's application for pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme was refused by the respondent on 23 June 2023. While the respondent accepted that the appellant is married to an EEA national, she concluded that the marriage "is one of convenience entered into as a means to circumvent the requirements for lawful entry to or stay in the UK". That conclusion relied on a series of inconsistencies said to have emerged from interviews conducted with the appellant and her husband.
            The appellant's subsequent appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Suffield-Thompson in a decision promulgated on 8 April 2024. The sole issue for the Judge was whether the marriage between the appellant and her husband was one of convenience. As defined by the relevant Immigration Rules, a marriage is one of convenience if it was:
(a) any criterion the party would have to meet in order to enjoy a right to enter or reside in the UK under the EEA Regulations; or
(b) any other provision of UK immigration law or any requirement of the Immigration Rules; or
(c) any criterion the party would otherwise have to meet in order to enjoy a right to enter or reside in the UK under EU law; or
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.