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.
On 13 th February 2012 the first Appellant submitted an application for leave to remain on human rights grounds. That application was refused with no right of appeal on 28 th May 2013. The second to fourth Appellants who were all born in the United Kingdom but retain Nigerian nationality were parties to that appeal.
The Appellant appealed and the appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Levin sitting at Manchester on 2 nd September 2014. In a determination promulgated on 16 th September 2014 the Appellant�s appeal was dismissed both under the Immigration Rules and on human rights grounds.
Ms Brown�s starting point is to rely on the skeleton arguments stating that there has been no codification of Article 8 prior to the Immigration Rule changes and that the Immigration Judge should have gone on to consider a claim pursuant to Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules.
�(a) Has the Defendant given full consideration to the Article 8 grounds advanced by the Claimant in his application?
(b) Would the Defendant�s decision have been different if the new rules had not been taken into account?
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.