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 Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge recorded at paragraph [21(b)] of the error of law decision that the following findings of the FtT are preserved:
"14. The Appellant claims to be the adoptive son of the sponsor and his wife. He is not related to his adoptive family by blood or marriage. They acknowledge this. They provide a detailed history as to how the Appellant came to be adopted by them and this is fully outlined in the various statements attached to the papers. I have no reason to take issue with that history.
However, to be identified as a child of the family unit, adopted as in this case, regard must be had to The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoption Order 2013.
As noted above I am happy to accept that there may be some form of adoption that took place. This does not bring the Appellant within the Immigration Rules.
Photographs have been provided in the papers and the sponsor and his wife have identified the Appellant in those photographs. I have no reason to doubt their evidence on this.
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.