UTIAC There is nothing in R (Nagre) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin), Gulshan (Article 8 – new Rules – correct approach) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 640 (IAC) or Shahzad (Art 8: legitimate aim) [2014] UKUT 85 (IAC) that suggests that a threshold test was being suggested as opposed to making it clear that there was a need to look at the evidence to see if there was anything which has not already been adequately considered in the context of the Immigration Rules and which could lead to a successful Article 8 claim. These authorities must not be read as seeking to qualify or fetter the assessment of Article 8. This is consistent with para 128 of R (MM and Others) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 985, that there is no utility in imposing a further intermediate test as a preliminary to a consideration of an Article 8 claim beyond the relevant criterion-based Rule. As is held in R (Ganesabalan) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2712 (Admin), there is no prior threshold which dictates whether the exercise of discretion should be considered; rather the nature of the assessment and the reasoning which are called for are informed by threshold considerations.
Judges:
Gill Utj
Citations:
[2014] UKUT 539 (IAC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 11-Jul-2014
Aikens LJ said: ‘The court would not be entitled to strike down the rule unless satisfied that it was incapable of being operated in a proportionate way and so was inherently unjustified in all or nearly all cases.’ and ‘If the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.543189
