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.
Held: The appeals succeeded.
Lord Brown said: ‘The Rules are not to be construed with all the strictness applicable to the construction of a statute or a statutory instrument but, instead, sensibly according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, recognising that they are statements of the Secretary of State’s administrative policy . . the court’s task is to discover from the words used in the Rules what the Secretary of State must be taken to have intended.’ and
rule 317(iii) ‘is concerned simply to establish the financial link between the dependent relative abroad and the relative settled here. Provided only that the relative abroad is getting funds on which he is wholly or mainly dependent and which he would not be getting save for his relative present and settled in the UK, that is sufficient. It is not necessary for the funds ever to have been part of the settled relative’s own personal resources.’
Lord Kerr said: ‘The vaunted precariousness of support from a third party source is, in my opinion, no greater than that which might arise in the course of the ordinary vagaries and vicissitudes of life. Promised employment may not materialise or may last for only a short time. Dependence on benefits received by the family member who is settled in the United Kingdom may cease . . it is entirely conceivable that support from a number of family members and friends of the person seeking to enter will be a more dependable resource and a more effective prevention of dependence on public funds than prospective employment . . ‘
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr
 UKSC 16, UKSC 2009/0084, UKSC 2009/0116, UKSC 2009/0095, UKSC 2009/0120, UKSC 2009/0085,  1 WLR 48,  Imm AR 203
Bailii, SC Summ, SC, SC Summ, SC, SC Summ, SC Summ, SC Summ, SC, SC Summ, SC
England and Wales
Cited – Ali, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 28-Oct-1999
Rules 281(v) and 297(iv) did not preclude long-term maintenance by third parties as supporting an application for permission for a family member to enter the UK. . .
Appeal from – AM (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer CA 1-Jul-2009
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 . .
Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Cited – AA (3rd Party Maintenance R297 (V)) Bangladesh IAT 21-Apr-2005
Rule 297(v) (as amended) requires that the parent, whom the child is joining, must himself maintain the child: ‘Third party support by relatives or otherwise cannot satisfy the rule’ . .
Cited – MK (Somalia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer and Another CA 19-Dec-2008
The appellants’ mother had been thrown into a well after resisting attempts to rape her. They had then been cared for by another family member who had, along with her natural children been granted asylum here. They appealed refusal of asylum. They . .
Cited – AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer CA 16-Oct-2008
When applying for entry under a sponsorship arrangement, the three applicable rules disallowed third party support.
Laws LJ said: ‘The immigrant’s article 8 rights will (must be) protected by the Secretary of State and the court whether or not . .
Cited – MW (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Dec-2007
The child was to come to the UK to stay with relatives. Permission was refused.
Held: To be allowed to come, it had to be shown that the child would be maintained here without recourse to public funds and by the people he or she was to stay . .
Cited – ZN (Afghanistan) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi) SC 12-May-2010
The Court was asked what rules apply to family members seeking entry to the United Kingdom, where the sponsor was given asylum and then obtained British citizenship. The ECO had said that the ordinary family members rules applied, where the . .
Cited – AA v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa) SC 18-Dec-2013
The appellant child, AA sought entry as the de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had previously been given refugee status. The sponsor had taken parental responsibility of AA under the Islamic Kafala procedure. AA had been admitted under human . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.384145