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 Pakistan born on 6 th April 1994 and he appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Walker promulgated on 17 th May 2018 refusing his appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State given on 6 th December 2016. The Secretary of State's decision was to refuse the application of a family permit to join Miss Sara Alexandra Duarte de Almeida in the United Kingdom as her reported brother-in-law under Regulation 8 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. The application was made on 24 th November 2016.
The Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the appellant and sponsor were related as claimed because the appellant submitted a NADRA Family Registration Certificate issued on 9 th July 2015, over twenty years after the appellant and his brother were born. Although the DNA test showed he was related, the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that Muhammad Usman was the person who provided the DNA, nor was the Entry Clearance Officer satisfied that the appellant had provided his DNA to be tested.
At the hearing before First-tier Tribunal Walker, the sponsor stated in evidence that she was supporting the appellant in the sum of £200 a month; her husband estimated payments between £150 and £200 a month. The schedule produced from the money transfer receipts in the appellant's bundle showed a total transfer of £3,807.40 since May 2015, an average of £106 per month [17].
The judge found the appellant and his parents lived in Faisalabad in a rented property which cost about £95 a month [18]. The evidence of the appellant and sponsor was the parents contributed little to the rent and that the major part of the sponsor's financial contribution was taken up by that rent. Thus, all three were beneficiaries of the payments.
The judge accepted that funds were being sent by the sponsor and her husband to the appellant and his parents, but these payments were for the benefit of all three and not just the appellant.
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.