“ I wish to add that this Court sees too many cases in which applicants for leave or their advisers – particularly in cases depending on article 8 outside the Rules – devote their energies to setting out extracts from the case-law rather than to demonstrating a compelling case based on the details of the applicant’s particular circumstances. The latter exercise may require more work, but it is what the Secretary of State, and if necessary the Tribunal, will be more concerned with. Cases of this kind generally turn on their facts, and the applicable law does not require elaborate exposition”. So said the Court of Appeal in Parveen v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 932 (25 April 2018)
This is clear criticism by the Court regarding the practice of advancement of inadequately or poorly prepared Article 8 applications.
Such applications clearly need to be particularised as to circumstances, buttressed by relevant supportive evidence. Generic and vague cover letters will not suffice more so where it is subsequently sought to mount future challenges in the higher courts.
Disappointingly in this case, the First Tier Tribunal permitted itself to be persuaded by the Home Office to grant permission to appeal in relation to an Immigration Judge’s decision allowing the Appellant’s Article 8 appeal.
Ironically, the same Home Office Guidance on private life which the Secretary of State relied upon and which formed the basis of grant of permission, was utilized to the Appellant’s benefit in the Upper Tribunal – although neither the presenting officer nor myself at the First Tier Tribunal hearing referred to it all. The Immigration Judge made no reference to the guidance in her decision when allowing the Appellant’s appeal.