The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to allow her indefinite leave to remain in the UK with her husband and family.
Held: On the facts presented, the interference with the applicant’s family life was such as to make it disproportionate under article 8 to remove her, notwithstanding that she was unable to satisfy a relevant criterion in the rules. Blake J said: ‘ . . the terms of the immigration rules are not a legitimate aim in their own right . . A judgment needs to be made as to how significant the aim, and how far the removal of the particular claimant in the circumstances of her case is necessary to promote that aim. The mere fact a genuine spouse lawfully admitted with her British citizen husband and settled children can no longer meet one requirement of the rules through no fault of her own is unlikely to amount to a weighty reason to justify interference with family life here that is otherwise to be respected.’
 EWHC 832 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration Rules
Cited – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.431643