HU247862016 & Ors. [2018] UKAITUR HU247862016 (15 November 2018)

HU247862016 & Ors. [2018] UKAITUR HU247862016 (15 November 2018)

The judge failed to properly engage with the issue of whether the financial documentation was submitted with the application, constituting an error of law. The evidence was available and submitted, so the appeals of the first, second, and third appellants are allowed. Insufficient evidence was provided for de facto adoption of the fourth appellant, and permission to appeal on that ground was not granted.

Citation
[2018] UKAITUR HU247862016
Parties
First Appellant: AB; Second Appellant: CD; Third Appellant: EF; Fourth Appellant: GH; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal Before Upper Tribunal
Outcome
appeals of first, second, and third appellants allowed; fourth appellant's appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appendix FM SE Financial Requirements, De Facto Adoption, Best Interests of Children
Immigration Family Law Appendix FM SE Financial Requirements De Facto Adoption Best Interests of Children

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

First Appellant

CD

Second Appellant

EF

Third Appellant

GH

Fourth Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal Before Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requisite financial evidence was submitted with the application
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence of de facto adoption was provided
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to engage with submitted documentation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge failed to properly engage with the issue of whether the financial documentation was submitted with the application, constituting an error of law. The evidence was available and submitted, so the appeals of the first, second, and third appellants are allowed. Insufficient evidence was provided for de facto adoption of the fourth appellant, and permission to appeal on that ground was not granted.

Court Disposition

appeals of first, second, and third appellants allowed; fourth appellant's appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decisions in respect of first, second, and third appellants set aside and remade; appeals allowed
  • Fourth appellant's appeal dismissed