UTIAC 1. Consistent application of the Immigration Rules to promote the economic and social policy of the UK is a relevant factor in carrying out the balancing exercise under Article 8(2) but the weight attached to it depends on the context of the case, whether there was ever any claim under the rules for indefinite leave to remain, and why such claim was not accepted.
2. In the particular circumstances of this case the weight to be attached to enforcement of immigration control was small in the light of the misdirection as to Paragraph 320 (7A), and the fact that the paragraph applies to all cases whether there is family life deserving respect or not.
3. The interests of minor children and their welfare are a primary consideration. A failure to treat them as such will violate Article 8(2).
4. Weighty reasons would be required to justify separating a parent from a lawfully settled minor child or child from a community in which he or she had grown up and lived for most of his or her life. The general situation in the relevant home country is also relevant, especially if it is known that the conditions there are dire (as they are, for example, in Zimbabwe at present).
5. In this particular case, no useful purpose would have been served if the appellant is required to depart the UK in order to make an entry clearance from abroad. All the issues are to be determined in this appeal rather than in the course of an investigation abroad where there would in any event be an interference.
Judges:
Blake J, P, Ward SIJ
Citations:
[2010] UKUT 278 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 99
Links:
Statutes:
Europsan Convention on Human Rights 8(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Immigration, Children, Human Rights
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421569
