The claimants had entered England unlawfully, fleeing from China, then moved to Ireland and then back to England with their new born child, and claimed asylum. The court considered how the position of their child affected the parents.
Held: To fulfil the requirements of Directive 90/364 all of Q, W and X had to demonstrate (i) the possession of sickness insurance; and (ii) sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom. No sufficient health insurance was proved by the applicants, and NHS care did not count for this purpose. That was fatal to their claim. Neither Directive 90/364 nor the Immigration Rules provide in terms for the situation before the court. They provide for derivative rights, on specified conditions, for spouses and dependent relatives of EU nationals; but since the applicants were in neither of these classes in relation to their daughter, neither source of law applied to them.
Judges:
Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ, Dyson LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1494, Times 13-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 1514
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Zhu, Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 19-Oct-2004
ECJ (Free Movement of Persons) Right of residence – Child with the nationality of one Member State but residing in another Member State – Parents nationals of a non-member country – Mother’s right to reside in . .
Cited – Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 11-Jul-2002
The applicant had come to England on a six month visitor’s visa. She then married an English national, but her visa was not extended.
Held: The husband had business interests and activities throughout the community. The deportation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.245947