HU087732019 & HU087752019 [2021] UKAITUR HU087732019 (13 January 2021)

HU087732019 & HU087752019 [2021] UKAITUR HU087732019 (13 January 2021)

The First-tier Tribunal erred by failing to consider that the missing bank statement evidence could be verified from other documents under Appendix FM-SE D(d)(iii)(1); the substantive financial requirements were met and the refusal was not justified. The appeal should be allowed exceptionally, and alternatively, refusal was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

Citation
[2021] UKAITUR HU087732019
Parties
First Appellant: Sara Nurhussein Beshir; Second Appellant: MA; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer, Sheffield
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appendix FM of Immigration Rules, Appendix FM SE Evidential Requirements, Article 8 ECHR, Entry Clearance, Financial Requirements for Family Settlement
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Appendix FM of Immigration Rules Appendix FM SE Evidential Requirements Article 8 ECHR Entry Clearance Financial Requirements for Family Settlement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Nurhussein Beshir

First Appellant

MA

Second Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer, Sheffield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants met the evidential requirements of Appendix FM-SE for financial eligibility
  2. 2 Whether refusal of entry clearance was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal erred by failing to consider that the missing bank statement evidence could be verified from other documents under Appendix FM-SE D(d)(iii)(1); the substantive financial requirements were met and the refusal was not justified. The appeal should be allowed exceptionally, and alternatively, refusal was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • First-tier Tribunal decision set aside for material error of law
  • Appeal remade and allowed on human rights grounds