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, Farai Gijima Hove, was born on 30 October 1996 and is a male citizen of Zimbabwe. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria, dated 26 March 2013 to refuse him entry clearance to the United Kingdom as the child of a relative (his father, Christopher Hove � hereafter referred to as the sponsor) present and settled in the United Kingdom. The First-tier Tribunal (Judge Crawford) in a determination promulgated on 18 December 2013, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
The appellant was required to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 297 of HC 395 (as amended). Judge Crawford found [17] that the United Kingdom sponsor had not had sole responsibility for the appellant. As a consequence, the appellant could only succeed by satisfying the requirement of paragraph 297(i)(f). The judge�s finding as regards sole responsibility has not been challenged by the appellant.
The appellant�s mother, with whom he lives, has been suffering from cancer. The judge noted that the appellant�s mother has chronic pain and that it was contended that the appellant �does not live the life of a normal teenage son� on account of the difficulties of living with his mother [7]. The judge heard the oral evidence of the United Kingdom sponsor and records in detail the submissions made by both representatives. He indicated that he had �considered all the material supplied to me in the case file� and provides particulars of those materials at [4].
The appellant now asserts that the judge at [18] singled out the positive aspects of the appellant�s life in Zimbabwe but ignored the difficulties he faces there living with his mother. I note, however, that the judge recorded that �the sponsor maintains that the life that the appellant is living is not suitable for a teenage boy because he has heavy responsibility for his mother�s care and she is �terminally ill��. The judge found that
the medical evidence that has been produced does not show that [the mother] is terminally ill. I accept that she has chronic illness and a colostomy. I accept the evidence of Dr Mthombeni that she needs care and the support of relatives.
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.