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 the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the respondent is a citizen of Afghanistan born on 1 January 1949. However, for convenience, I refer below to Mr Mohamad as the appellant and to the Secretary of State as the respondent, which are the designations they had before the proceedings at the First-tier Tribunal.
The Secretary of State appeals with permission to the Upper Tribunal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Talbot promulgated on 5 May 2015, allowing the appellant's appeal pursuant to the Immigration Rules as the dependent relative under Appendix FM paragraph EC DR. 1. 1. against the decision of the Secretary of State made on 17 July 2014, in which the Secretary of State refused the appellant's application for leave to enter the United Kingdom.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Talbot gave the following reasons for allowing the appellant's appeal pursuant to the Immigration Rules.
i. [19] The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellant meets the criteria in Appendix FM E-ECDR 2.4. and E-ECDR.2.5. Sub paragraph 2.4 requires that the applicant "must as a result of age, illness or disability require long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks". Paragraph 2.5 states that the applicant "must be unable even with the practical and financial help of the sponsor, to obtain the required level of care in the country where they are living because (a) it is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it or (b) it is not affordable.
The respondent in her grounds of appeal state the following which I summarise. The Judge allowed the appeal under appendix FM as he was satisfied, based on the detailed oral evidence of the sponsor and the appellant's own evidence and a medical report that the Immigration Rules were met. It is submitted that the First-tier Tribunal Judge has failed to lawfully engage with section 12A (g), 33-37 of Appendix FM-SE, which details the evidence necessary to support an application under the adult dependent relative route of Appendix FM.
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.