HU038752018 & Ors. [2019] UKAITUR HU038752018 (29 March 2019)

HU038752018 & Ors. [2019] UKAITUR HU038752018 (29 March 2019)

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law by failing to properly apply relevant Supreme Court case law and by not adequately considering the evidence regarding the sponsor's financial position and the best interests of the children. The public interest in immigration control did not outweigh the appellants' Article 8 rights, and the evidence supported that the sponsor met the financial requirements. The appeals were allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds.

Citation
[2019] UKAITUR HU038752018
Parties
First Appellant: G T; Second Appellant: F T; Third Appellant: V T; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal Before Upper Tribunal Following Dismissal by First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Appendix FM Immigration Rules, Minimum Income Requirement, Family Reunification
Immigration Human Rights Article 8 ECHR Appendix FM Immigration Rules Minimum Income Requirement Family Reunification

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G T

First Appellant

F T

Second Appellant

V T

Third Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal Before Upper Tribunal Following Dismissal by First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of entry clearance breached Article 8 ECHR rights of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants met the minimum income requirements under the Immigration Rules
  3. 3 Whether the First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law in assessing the evidence and applying relevant legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law by failing to properly apply relevant Supreme Court case law and by not adequately considering the evidence regarding the sponsor's financial position and the best interests of the children. The public interest in immigration control did not outweigh the appellants' Article 8 rights, and the evidence supported that the sponsor met the financial requirements. The appeals were allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Appeals of all appellants allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds
  • Anonymity order granted under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008