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 in this appeal was the Respondent at the First-tier Tribunal hearing, decided on the papers on 26 February 2014. However, for ease of reference, the Appellant and Respondent are hereafter referred to as they were before the First-tier Tribunal. Therefore Mrs Mindo is referred to as the Appellant and the Entry Clearance Officer is referred to as the Respondent.
The Appellant�s appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse to grant her leave to enter the UK as a visitor under paragraph 41 of HC395, as amended (the Immigration Rules) to visit her brother, the Sponsor, was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lingham (the Judge).
a. The Judge failed to explain the evidential basis for finding that the Appellant was genuinely seeking to leave to enter for the limited period stated by her (as stated in the visa application form) as required by paragraph 41 (i) and
b. This finding was arguably important because she admitted to having remained in the United Kingd om, on two previous occasions, for periods longer than those that she had declared when she made the relevant applications and she failed to provide an explanation.
Mr Smart handed up a copy of paragraph 41 and provided the Sponsor with a copy of the relevant parts of paragraph 41 highlighted. He also handed up a copy of Sawmyden .
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.