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 claimant's grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) disputed that he had ever used deception and also claimed that the SSHD should have granted him 60 days when she curtailed his licence, pursuant to the Upper Tribunal guidance in Patel (revocation of sponsor licence - fairness) India [2011] UKUT 211 and similar cases.
His appeal came before Judge Freer of the FtT. He found that the SSHD had not proven deception and in consequence
(2) the claimant should succeed under the substantive Immigration Rules set out in Appendices A and C:
"For that [the general grounds which relied on deception] was the only reason he failed in points under the appendices."
The judge went on to state that as the claimant was entitled to succeed under the Immigration Rules he did not need to decide the human rights grounds 'but it appears highly unlikely that he would succeed under Article 8'" (paragraph 33).
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.