J U D G M E N T
This decision follows a remote hearing in respect of which there has been no objection by the parties. The form of remote hearing was by video (V), the platform was Skype for Business. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing.
An applicant is “eligible to apply for leave to remain as a partner” within the meaning of para E- LTRPT .2.3 of Appendix FM only if it is readily apparent from the information contained in their application and any information available to the Secretary of State that they meet the autonomous definition of “partner” in GEN.1.2. of Appendix FM unless the route under which the application is being made clearly provides for a different meaning of “partner”.
- J U D G M E N T
- Background
- The decisions under challenge
- Relevant legislative framework
- my emphasis
- and the applicant must not be eligible to apply for leave to remain as a partner under this Appendix
- (iii) the applicant must not be eligible to apply for leave to remain as a partner under this Appendix
- The applicant’s submissions
- Mahad
- Pokhriyal v SSHD
- The respondent’s submissions
- Discussion
- Pokhriyal