Category: Immigration

KO (Nigeria) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 24 Oct 2018

The Court considered linked issues as to the treatment of ‘qualifying children’ and their parents, under the statutory regime contained in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Three appellants (KO, IT and NS) argued that when determining whether it is ‘reasonable to expect’ a child to leave the UK, or whether the effect of deportation of a person would be ‘unduly harsh’ on their child, the tribunal is only concerned with the position of the child and not with the conduct of the parents.
Held: The appeals failed. The purpose of Part 5A of the 2002 Act is to produce a straightforward set of rules and to reduce the need for discretionary judgement when taking account of public interest or other factors not directly reflected in the wording of the statute. It also presumed that those rules are intended to be consistent with the general principles relating to the ‘best interests’ of children.
Otherwise NS (Sri Lanka) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, IT (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (MA (Pakistan)) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 53, [2018] WLR(D) 660, [2019] Imm AR 400, [2019] HRLR 1, [2019] 1 All ER 675, [2018] 1 WLR 5273, [2019] INLR 41
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2018 Apr 17 am Video, SC 2018 Apr pm Video, SC 2018 Apr 18 am Video, SC 2018 Apr 18 pm Video
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Human Rights Act 1998, Immigration Act 2014 19
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – MM (Uganda) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the meaning of the term ‘unduly harsh’ in paragraph 399 of the Immigration Rules and section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. . .
Appeal from – MA (Pakistan) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Another CA 7-Jul-2016
Leave to remain – Application – Reasonableness of expecting child applicant to leave United Kingdom – Proper approach to applying reasonableness test . .
Appeal from – IT (Jamaica) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 2-Sep-2016
. .
Cited – PD and Others (Article 8 : Conjoined Family Claims) Sri Lanka UTIAC 17-Mar-2016
UTIAC In considering the conjoined Article 8 ECHR claims of multiple family members decision-makers should first apply the Immigration Rules to each individual applicant and, if appropriate, then consider Article . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.625970

VA050112013: AIT 5 Jan 2015

The Respondent was a national of India aged ten. The First-tier Tribunal had allowed his appeal against a refusal to grant him entry clearance as a visitor to the UK. The Entry Clearance Officer now appealed that decision.
Bruce DUTJ
[2015] UKAITUR VA050112013
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.545341