OA140752014 & Others [2016] UKAITUR OA140752014 (31 May 2016)
The Tribunal found that the Claimants did not meet the specified evidential requirements under Appendix FM-SE, and that the Tribunal had no discretion to overlook these shortcomings. The Original Tribunal's decision was an error of law and could not stand.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] UKAITUR OA140752014
- Parties
- Appellant: Entry Clearance Officer - Beijing; Respondent: M Y; Respondent: Y H; Respondent: P H
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 31 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appendix FM SE Evidential Requirements, Article 8 ECHR, Financial Maintenance Requirements, Discretion Under Immigration Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Entry Clearance Officer - Beijing
Appellant
M Y
Respondent
Y H
Respondent
P H
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether specified evidence requirements under Appendix FM-SE were met
- 2 Whether discretion could be exercised to overlook evidential shortcomings
- 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR was engaged in absence of meeting Immigration Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Claimants did not meet the specified evidential requirements under Appendix FM-SE, and that the Tribunal had no discretion to overlook these shortcomings. The Original Tribunal's decision was an error of law and could not stand.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Original Tribunal's decision set aside
- Appeals of the Claimants dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment