UI2022006305 & UI2022006306 [2023] UKAITUR UI2022006305 (12 October 2023)

UI2022006305 & UI2022006306 [2023] UKAITUR UI2022006305 (12 October 2023)

The Second Appellant is a British citizen by descent as his father was a British citizen otherwise than by descent at the time of his birth. Therefore, the financial requirement for entry clearance should be calculated disregarding the child element, which the Sponsor meets. The First Appellant satisfies the Immigration Rules and her Article 8 rights outweigh the public interest. The Second Appellant, as a British citizen, has the right of abode and does not require entry clearance; refusal does not breach his Article 8 rights.

Citation
[2023] UKAITUR UI2022006305
Parties
First Appellant: Molika Farhana Aktar Tuha; Second Appellant: Syed Mohammed Abdullah; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Asylum Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
First Appellant's appeal allowed; Second Appellant's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Financial Requirements, British Citizenship by Descent, Right of Abode, Article 8 ECHR, Adequate Maintenance, Third Party Support
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Nationality Law Entry Clearance Financial Requirements British Citizenship by Descent Right of Abode Article 8 ECHR +2 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molika Farhana Aktar Tuha

First Appellant

Syed Mohammed Abdullah

Second Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Asylum Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Appellant is a British citizen by descent
  2. 2 Whether the financial requirements for entry clearance were met
  3. 3 Whether refusal breached Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Appellant is a British citizen by descent as his father was a British citizen otherwise than by descent at the time of his birth. Therefore, the financial requirement for entry clearance should be calculated disregarding the child element, which the Sponsor meets. The First Appellant satisfies the Immigration Rules and her Article 8 rights outweigh the public interest. The Second Appellant, as a British citizen, has the right of abode and does not require entry clearance; refusal does not breach his Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

First Appellant's appeal allowed; Second Appellant's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • First Appellant's appeal is allowed; entry clearance to be granted.
  • Second Appellant's appeal is dismissed; no entry clearance required as he is a British citizen.