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 core issue in this appeal is whether the appellant's removal to Ghana in consequence of the respondent's refusal of his human rights claim would violate his rights under Article 8 ECHR.
      Based on the respondent's concession at the hearing, we conclude that the appellant's removal would violate Article 8, with specific reference to the family life he enjoys with his baby daughter and the exception to the public interest considerations under both EX.1 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended.
      The appellant is a citizen of Ghana, born in 1994, who arrived in the United Kingdom in 2015 as a visitor. He then made at least one unsuccessful human rights claim. In the latter part of 2017, he started a relationship with Ms MA, a British citizen. That relationship developed and the couple were married by proxy in October 2019. It is common ground that the relationship remains genuine and subsisting.
      Through this protracted route, the appeal came before us.
      At the error of law hearing in November 2024, the appellant raised the fact that MA was pregnant. She duly gave birth to the couple's daughter in February 2025. This fact was communicated to the respondent with a request that consent be given for the Upper Tribunal to consider the matter at the resumed hearing. There was no response from the respondent prior to the 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.