The appellant had married in Somalia. His wife lived in London and sought permission for him to enter, she acting as his sponsor. The Immigration judge had found that they met all the criteria save one, that they would be able to support themselves other than by recourse to public funds. The wife was a qualified accountant, but disabled and not in work. They argued that the fact of disability required a greater justification under Human Rights Law before such a treatment.
Held: The claim failed. Elias LJ said: ‘[l]ike cases should be treated alike, and different cases treated differently. This is perhaps the most fundamental principle of justice’
‘It may well be that where a state treats a disabled person differently by reason of his disability – in domestic terms, a case of direct discrimination – it may be necessary for any justification in relation to Article 14 to be supported by particularly weighty reasons. However, as Miss Giovanetti points out, there is no Strasbourg authority which has applied that approach to justification of the equal application of a uniform rule or where an individual is contending for a right to more favourable treatment. In my judgment, it would not be appropriate for us to initiate such an approach.’
Judges:
Mummery, Maurice Kay, Elias LJJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 634, [2009] UKHRR 1073
Links:
Statutes:
Immigration Rules 281, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Thlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The applicant was a Jehovah’s Witness who had been convicted of insubordination under the Military Criminal Code for refusing to wear a military uniform at a time of general mobilisation. He was subsequently refused appointment as a . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 30-Jul-2013
Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights, Discrimination
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347296