Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Whether income is “lawfully derived” to be assessed case by case, Upper Tribunal holds
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
In a refreshing example of the Upper Tribunal choosing not to lay down wide-ranging obiter guidance on limited facts having not heard relevant submissions, the headnote for Fatima (paragraph 1 (d) Appendix FM-SE: interpretation)  UKUT 155 (IAC) says simply:
Interpretation of the phrase “lawfully derived” in paragraph 1 (d) of Appendix FM-SE is to be on a case-to-case basis. The drafter of the Rule did not see fit to provide a definition, and it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to do so.
The sponsor in this case had worked for an employer who had, unbeknownst to the sponsor, failed to make national insurance and tax contributions. This did not stop the income being lawfully derived, as “his income arose perfectly lawfully from lawful employment”.