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 order returning him to Sierra Leone would impinge on their right to family life.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The effect on other family members with a right to respect for their family life with the appellant must also be taken into account in an appeal to the AIT on human rights grounds. Each family member had to be treated as a victim.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said: ‘Together these members enjoy a single family life and whether or not the removal would interfere disproportionately with it has to be looked at by reference to the family unit as a whole and the impact of removal upon each member. If overall the removal would be disproportionate, all affected family members are to be regarded as victims.’
Lady Hale said: ‘To insist that an appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal consider only the effect upon other family members as it affects the appellant, and that a judicial review brought by other family members considers only the effect upon the appellant as it affects them, is not only artificial and impracticable. It also risks missing the central point about family life, which is that the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts. The right to respect for the family life of one necessarily encompasses the right to respect for the family life of others, normally a spouse or minor children, with whom that family life is enjoyed.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2008] UKHL 39, [2008] 3 WLR 166, Times 01-Aug-2008, [2009] AC 115, [2008] Imm AR 688, [2008] HRLR 38, [2008] UKHRR 935, [2008] INLR 489, 25 BHRC 245, [2008] 4 All ER 1146
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 82 84
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2005
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 . .
Cited – Starred Kehinde (Appeal, Section 65 1999 Act, Rights of Others) Nigeria IAT 19-Dec-2001
‘In an appeal under section 65, therefore, there is no obligation to take into account claims made about the human rights of individuals other than the appellant or individuals who have not themselves been the subject of a decision which is under . .
Cited – Ahmadi and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Dec-2005
Of two brothers, one sought to remain here to protect the other (a refugee settled here) from the consequences of his florid schizophrenia.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The brother settled here had brought contingent separate proceedings in . .
Cited – Starred SS (Eco, Article 8) Malaysia IAT 29-Apr-2004
From refusal of entry clearance . .
Cited – AC v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 11-Mar-2003
. .
Cited – Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Feb-2006
Husband and wife sought leave to remain to care for the husband’s father who was settled as a refugee, but suffered chronic depression and presented a high suicide risk.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Mokrani -c- France ECHR 15-Jul-2003
(French Text Only) ‘[R]elationships between adults do not necessarily benefit from protection under article 8 of the Convention unless the existence of additional elements of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, can be proven.’ . .
Cited – VN (Uganda) v Entry Clearance Officer CA 19-Mar-2008
. .
Cited – AB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Dec-2007
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 . .
Cited – Sezen v The Netherlands ECHR 31-Jan-2006
The case concerned ‘a functioning family unit where the parents and children are living together’. The court considered wehether a deportation would infringe the human rights of te applicant: ‘The Court has previously held that domestic measures . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – NG (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 4-Dec-2007
A Pakistani mother, with two young children, who was to be deported after separating from her husband, a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Contact between father and children would thereby be broken.
Held: ‘There was no prospect of the . .
Cited by:
Applied – 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 . .
Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.270383
