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 are both nationals of the Philippines. They are mother and son whose dates of birth respectively are 31 January 1989 and 29 January 2010.
They appealed against the respondent's decision to refuse them entry clearance as the spouse and child of Mr Remigo Ancheta, which appeal was allowed by Judge Lal (the judge) in a decision promulgated on 24 June 2015.
The grounds submit that the judge materially erred in law by misapplying the case law. He recorded at [14] of the decision the representatives' submissions with regard to SS (Congo) [2015] EWCA Civ 387 but misapplied the same. The case law stated the positive obligation under Article 8 at [38] of SS but at [39] it discussed leave to enter the UK and reaffirmed that "Article 8 imposes no general obligation on a State to facilitate the choice made by a married couple to reside in it". [39](ii) continued with:
SS Congo also took into account a child applicant at [39](iv) in acknowledging that a child was not a trump card but was a relevant factor in assessing the fair balance between the individual and the community. The paragraph continues:
"The age of the child, the closeness of their relationship with the other family member in the United Kingdom and whether the family could live together elsewhere are likely to be important factors which should be borne in mind."
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.