The appellant sought leave to enter or remain, saying that a refusal would separate him from his family, and be a disproportionate and unlawful interference with his Article 8 rights to a family life.
Held: An applicant had to show more than mere hardship, or only difficulty or obstacle. He would have to identify and prove such elements at a level of seriousness which went beyond matters of choice or convenience. VW’s appeal succeeded, but others failed.
Mummery, Sedley and Wilson LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 5, [2009] WLR (D) 7
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Batista v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against a deportation order requiring his return to Portugal. He said that when considering the effect of the order on his family, the AIT had applied the wrong test.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The test to be applied was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.280015