VW (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1089 (23 July 2015)

VW (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1089 (23 July 2015)

Permission to appeal was refused because any error in applying the amended Immigration Rules was immaterial; the First-tier Tribunal considered the case under the correct legal framework and properly applied the Article 8 proportionality test. No arguable point of law or compelling reason for further appeal was established.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1089
Parties
Claimant/applicant: VW (Nigeria); Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Remain, Article 8 ECHR, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Exceptional Circumstances
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Leave to Remain Article 8 ECHR Immigration Rules Proportionality Exceptional Circumstances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VW (Nigeria)

Claimant/applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal made a material error of law by applying the wrong version of the Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal failed to give sufficient weight to evidence of exceptional circumstances under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because any error in applying the amended Immigration Rules was immaterial; the First-tier Tribunal considered the case under the correct legal framework and properly applied the Article 8 proportionality test. No arguable point of law or compelling reason for further appeal was established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused