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.
At the hearing, the Appellant appeared represented by her husband, the Sponsor, Zia Ullah. He had no legal representation, but confirmed that he was happy for the hearing to proceed nonetheless.
The evidence before Judge Crawford was supplemented by what the Sponsor told me at the hearing. None of that evidence was disputed by the Respondent. I therefore find that the Appellant married her husband, the Sponsor, sometime prior to 2008. Since then they have lived together as man and wife. Their marriage is genuine and subsisting. They have four children, namely [MrZ] born on [ ] 2007, [AH] born on [ ] 2009, [ASZ] born on [ ] 2011, and finally [MhZ] born on [ ] 2015.
The Appellant's husband was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK on the basis of long residency on 25 th November 2011. On 17 th June 2014 he became a British citizen by naturalisation. He is a graduate in telecommunications engineering from Aston University, and is employed by the Royal Mail earning approximately £56,000 per annum.
The Appellant's three elder children have commenced their education in the UK. All the Appellant's children were born in the UK where they have lived for all of their lives. They have no experience of life in Pakistan.
I was not asked to make an anonymity order. I have considered whether to do so but find that in this case it is not necessary.
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.