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.
I will refer to the four respondents as the appellants as they were the appellants before the First-tier Judge, and I will refer to the Entry Clearance Officer as the respondent.
The judge found that paragraphs 41 and 46A of the Immigration Rules were satisfied. He remarked at paragraph 13 of the determination that none of the appellants was in the United Kingdom and so they could not invoke Article 8 in their own right and even if that were too restrictive an approach, plainly there was no private life component to their appeals in that they had never done more than visit the United Kingdom in the past.
In her submissions Ms Isherwood relied on the grounds of appeal. It had not been shown why Article 8 was engaged. The decisions in AAO and Patel were of particular relevance. The judge�s findings were unclear and the appeal should be dismissed.
By way of reply Ms Isherwood argued that it had not been shown that Article 8 was engaged with regard either to family or private life.
If I were to find an error of law Mr Otchie argued that there would be a need for a further hearing in light of the judge�s findings. Ms Isherwood argued that the matter could be determined without the need for a further 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.