The petitioner said that in reaching her decision for the return of the petitioner with his wife and children to the Republic of Congo, she had not properly given priority to the interests of the children, and had wrongly refused to treat the petitioner’s submissions as a new claim.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘. A fair interpretation of what the respondent said at page 7 of her letter was that, in assessing overall the best interests of the children, she took into account that it would be in their best interests to be with their parents; that their Nationality was Congolese and that it would be in their best interests to be brought up within that culture; that educational facilities were an important factor in the assessment of best interests, and that the facilities in the UK would be better than those in the Congo, but that, in the absence of reliance on particular factors, the fact that the children would be returned along with their parents meant that the effect of the difference in educational opportunities between the UK and the Congo would not be particularly detrimental to them. ‘
Judges:
Lady Paton, Lady Dorrian, Lord McGhie
Citations:
[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 87, [2012] CSIH 87
Links:
Statutes:
Euriopean Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal from – Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Immigration
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.466332