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.
This is an appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lloyd promulgated on 9 th March 2016. The underlying decision that was the subject of the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal ("F t T") was the decision of the respondent dated 9 th April 2015 to refuse the appellant entry clearance to the UK. The decision of the Entry Clearance Officer ("ECO") was maintained following a review by the Entry Clearance Manager on 21 st June 2015.
The ECO was satisfied that the appellant was married, but was not satisfied that the relationship between the appellant and her partner was genuine and subsisting. Similarly, the ECO was not satisfied that the appellant and her partner intended to live together permanently in the UK. The application for entry clearance as a partner was therefore refused because the ECO was not satisfied that the appellant met all the requirements of Section E-ECP of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. The ECO was not satisfied that the requirements of E-ECP.2.6 and 2.10 were met.
The decision of the ECO to refuse entry clearance was maintained following a review by the Entry Clearance Manager, after considering all the supporting documents provided, the information as declared on the application form, the refusal notice and the grounds for appeal.
The respondent has filed a rule 24 response dated 5 th September 2015. The respondent opposes the appeal and contends that the Judge has given ample reasons why this appeal was dismissed. The respondent contends that any error in the assessment of a small number of transcripts recording electronic communication in English, between the appellant and her sponsor, does not amount to a material error of law capable of affecting the outcome of the appeal.
The appellant seeks to appeal findings made by the F t T Judge, who had the opportunity of hearing the evidence of the appellant's sponsor, albeit, the appellant was unrepresented. The issue for me to decide is whether the Judge was entitled to make the findings that he did on the evidence before him, and to conclude that on balance, the relationship between the appellant and sponsor is not genuine or subsisting, and that the couple do not genuinely intend to live together in the UK.
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.