Post
by avjones » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:18 am
I came across it a couple of weeks ago, and while it is more helpful than otherwise, it's not definitive, I reckon, for a few reasons:
(1) It's an old case, and the AIT has got a lot stricter in the last 4-5 years IMO;
(2) It's not a very detailed decision;
(3) It only remitted, rather than allowed. The case was refused ONLY on 320, so they could have allowed the appeal outright, but didn't.
In such circumstances an Adjudicator must consider the way in which the discretion has been exercised. The Adjudicator did little more than agree with the Respondent’s conclusion that this was a case which came within the category where entry clearance “should normally be refusedâ€
I am not, and cannot, offer legal advice to particular people. I can only discuss general areas of immigration law.
People should always consider obtaining professional advice about their own particular circumstances.
