SF (Afghanistan) and Anor v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 758 (09 June 2011)

SF (Afghanistan) and Anor v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 758 (09 June 2011)

The Immigration Judge materially erred in law by relying on a job offer made after the date of the entry clearance refusal to satisfy the maintenance requirement, contrary to s.85(5) of the 2002 Act, as only circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision are relevant. The error was material and not cured by subsequent legal developments regarding third party support.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 758
Parties
Appellants: SF (Afghanistan) and Anr; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Maintenance Requirements, Article 8 ECHR, Evidentiary Rules, Material Error of Law
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Maintenance Requirements Article 8 ECHR Evidentiary Rules Material Error of Law

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SF (Afghanistan) and Anr

Appellants

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Immigration Judge Seifert materially erred in law by relying on post-decision evidence of a job offer in assessing maintenance requirements under the Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances appertaining at the time of the entry clearance refusal were properly considered under s.85(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Judge materially erred in law by relying on a job offer made after the date of the entry clearance refusal to satisfy the maintenance requirement, contrary to s.85(5) of the 2002 Act, as only circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision are relevant. The error was material and not cured by subsequent legal developments regarding third party support.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Upper Tribunal