The appellant arrived aged 19 from Sierra Leone and was granted leave to enter as a student, which leave was extended. His famiy had been politically active and suffered abuse after a coup. When his leave expired he applied for asylum. Other family members had been granted indefinite leave. He appealed against the AIT’s refusal of his claim on the gound ‘as to the extent to which the position of the claimant’s family members was to be taken into account. There are apparently conflicting decisions by the tribunal in Kehinde . . and at first instance on judicial review by Jack J in AC [2003] EWHC 389 (Admin) which it is desirable the Court of Appeal should resolve’.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘Under section 65 of [the 1999 Act], the right of appeal on human rights grounds requires consideration of the alleged breach of the appellant’s human rights. In the present case this required the adjudicator to concentrate on the effects of removal on the appellant. True it is, as Jack J said in R (AC) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2003] EWHC 389 (Admin) [2003] INLR 507, the effect on others might have an effect on an appellant, nonetheless it is the consequence to the appellant which is the relevant consequence. In the context of a merits appeal, which this was, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that the adjudicator had allowed his judgment to be affected unduly by the effect of removal on the remainder of the family in particular his mother. Further, the adjudicator does not suggest that the effect on the family, let alone the appellant, amounted to an exceptional circumstance.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Latham
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 828
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – AC v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 11-Mar-2003
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.228230
