Ogundimu (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria: UTIAC 8 Feb 2013

UTIAC 1 The expectation is that it will be an exceptional case in which permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be granted where the lodging of the application for permission is more than 28 days out of time. Where, in such a case, a judge is minded to grant permission, the preferable course is to provide an opportunity to the respondent to make representations. This might be achieved by listing the permission application for oral hearing.
2 The introduction of the new Immigration Rules (HC 194) does not affect the circumstance that when considering Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention ‘for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in [this] country very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion.’ The principles derived from Maslov v Austria [2008] ECHR 546 are still be applied.
3 Paragraph 399(a) of the Immigration Rules conflicts with the Secretary of State’s duties under Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Little weight should be attached to this Rule when consideration is being given to the assessment of proportionality under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.
4 The natural and ordinary meaning of the word ‘ties’ in paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules imports a concept involving something more than merely remote or abstract links to the country of proposed deportation or removal. It involves there being a connection to life in that country. Consideration of whether a person has ‘no ties’ to such a country must involve a rounded assessment of all of the relevant circumstances and is not to be limited to ‘social, cultural and family’ circumstances.

Blake J P, O’Connor UTJ
[2013] UKUT 60 (IAC)
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 2, Immigration Rules 399(a), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
CitedMaslov v Austria ECHR 23-Jun-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant came lawfully to Austria when 6. He committed a large number of offences when he was 14 and 15, and had been sentenced to imprisonment. He complained of a later decision to deport him.
Held: The court said: ‘ The . .
CitedJulius v Lord Bishop of Oxford and Another HL 23-Mar-1880
A statute enacted that with regard to certain charges against any Clerk in Holy Orders it ‘shall be lawful’ for the Bishop of the diocese ‘on the application of any party complaining thereof’ to issue a commission for enquiry.
Held: The words . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Children

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.470863