The claimant came here from Jamaica, but overstayed. She married a British citizen in 2001 and applied for leave to remain. That was refused.
Held: In refusing such a claim, the tribunal ought to have given respect to the husband’s human rights. As a result of the decision would either have to abandon his family or his home. The decision was flawed. Sedley LJ said: ‘In substance, albeit not in form, [the husband] was a party to the proceedings. It was as much his marriage as the appellant’s which was in jeopardy, and it was the impact of removal on him rather than on her which, given the lapse of years since the marriage, was now critical. From Strasbourg’s point of view, his Convention rights were as fully engaged as hers. He was entitled to something better than the cavalier treatment he received . . It cannot be permissible to give less than detailed and anxious consideration to the situation of a British citizen who has lived here all his life before it is held reasonable and proportionate to expect him to emigrate to a foreign country in order to keep his marriage intact.’
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1302, [2007] UKHRR 1177, [2008] HRLR 17, [2008] 1 WLR 1893, [2008] Imm AR 306, [2008] INLR 83
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights, Family
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.261816