OA092632014 & OA092642014 [2016] UKAITUR OA092632014 (19 January 2016)

OA092632014 & OA092642014 [2016] UKAITUR OA092632014 (19 January 2016)

The appellants failed to provide the specified evidence required by Appendix FM-SE despite being given adequate opportunity. The Entry Clearance Manager lawfully exercised discretion and was not satisfied the requirements were met. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law and the refusal was proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Citation
[2016] UKAITUR OA092632014
Parties
First Appellant: Mrs Shaik Mohideen Nachiyar Abdul Rafiq; Second Appellant: Ms Sithi Sajidha Abdul Rafiq; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Appendix FM SE Evidential Requirements, Income Threshold, Article 8 ECHR, Discretion Under Immigration Rules
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Appendix FM SE Evidential Requirements Income Threshold Article 8 ECHR Discretion Under Immigration Rules

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Shaik Mohideen Nachiyar Abdul Rafiq

First Appellant

Ms Sithi Sajidha Abdul Rafiq

Second Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants met the evidential requirements under Appendix FM-SE for entry clearance based on income threshold
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by not considering evidential flexibility or discretion under Appendix FM-SE
  3. 3 Whether the refusal of entry clearance was proportionate under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to provide the specified evidence required by Appendix FM-SE despite being given adequate opportunity. The Entry Clearance Manager lawfully exercised discretion and was not satisfied the requirements were met. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law and the refusal was proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed