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 is a citizen of Nepal born on 7 February 1986. He appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse his application for entry clearance to the UK.
       The appellant applied on 15 February 2023 for entry clearance to the UK as the adult dependent child of his mother, Tirtha Maya Rai, the sponsor, the widow of a former Gurkha soldier. The sponsor had come to the UK after being granted settlement as the widow of a Gurkha soldier on 24 August 2020, her husband having passed away on 13 October 2004.
       The appellant sought permission to appeal against Judge Traynor's decision on the grounds that he had provided sufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate that he was financially and emotionally dependent on his sponsor; that, by considering necessity at the engagement stage, the judge had conflated Article 8.1 (engagement) with Article 8(2) proportionality; and that the judge had failed to take into account material evidence.
       Permission was refused in the First-tier Tribunal but was subsequently granted in the Upper Tribunal on a renewed application, on the following basis:
" It is arguable that the First-tier Tribunal took irrelevant factors into account and/or misdirected itself in respect of its conclusion that there was not here a family life for the purpose of Article 8 because the Appellant had not established a dependency of necessity ."
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.