The claimant, a Chilean national, sought review of a decision not to allow him to stay in the UK as the husband of a British national. He said that the decision was based on him being under 21, and that this was discriminatory, and infringed his article 8 rights to respect for his private and family life.
Held: The claim failed. The respondent’s statement of changes had raised the bar on such claims from 18 to 21. The change had a proper foundation in seeking too remove temptation to forced marriages, and that was sufficient even though it impacted also on genuine arrangements such as those of the applicant. It was lawful and proportionate. Article 8 created no obligation on signatory states to respect choices by couples of their place of residence or to accept the settlement of a non-national spouse in this country.
Burnett J
[2010] 1 FCR 81, [2009] EWHC 3189 (Admin)
Bailii, Times
Immigration Act 1971 2(2), European Convention on Human Rights 8, Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (2008) (HC 1113)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Quila and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Dec-2010
The court was asked whether the ban contained in paragraph 277 of the immigration rules on the entry for settlement of foreign spouses between the ages of 18 and 21 is a lawful way of dealing with the problem of forced marriages. . .
At First Instance – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights, Family
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.381841
