The Court was asked what rules apply to family members seeking entry to the United Kingdom, where the sponsor was given asylum and then obtained British citizenship. The ECO had said that the ordinary family members rules applied, where the claimants said that the joint relative rules applied, under which they would not be required to meet maintenance and accommodation rules.
Held: The family’s appeal was allowed. The question was rephrased to ‘Do paras 352A and 352D apply to a person who has been recognised as a refugee and granted asylum but has become a British citizen before the date of the relevant application for, or perhaps decision as to, entry clearance.’
The court was not persuaded that the difference between the language of paras 352D and 352A can be explained by reference to the familiar use of the perfect tense to denote that the state of affairs is still continuing. This involves reading the expression ‘the parent who has been granted asylum’ as if it read ‘the parent who has been granted asylum and remains a refugee’, which it does not.
Where a sponsor had been granted asylum and later British Citizenship, his family members still had to meet the rules for joining a person who had been granted asylum, and the additional requirements for maintenance and accomodation for family members did not have to be met.
Lord Phillips, President, Lord Rodger
Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
 WLR (D) 121,  UKSC 21,  4 All ER 829,  2 AC 534,  Lloyd’s Rep FC 217,  2 WLR 378,  UKHRR 204
SC summary, SC, Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, Times
Immigration Rules, House of Commons Paper 395, United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 1A(2), Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (1994) (HC 395), Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (2002) (Cm 5597)
England and Wales
Appeal from – DL (DRC) v The Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria CA 18-Dec-2008
The Court asked: ‘1(a) Is a person who is outside his country of origin and recognised as a refugee, and who has subsequent to that recognition taken on the nationality of the host country, still a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva . .
Cited – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.414898