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 UK of his wife and daughter changed the circumstances requiring a fresh application.
Held: The appeal failed. There had been no failure to consider the best interests of Mr and Mrs Zoumbas’ children in the article 8 proportionality exercise: ‘We are not persuaded that there is any lack of clarity in the Secretary of State’s findings on the children’s best interests or any indication that there had not been a careful examination of those interests. The decision letter sets out the Secretary of State’s conclusions briefly. But that does not give rise in this case to any inference that there has not been careful consideration.’ and ‘It was legitimate for the decision-maker to ask herself first whether it would have been proportionate to remove the parents if they had no children and then, in considering the best interests of the children in the proportionality exercise, ask whether their well-being altered that provisional balance. When one has regard to the age of the children, the nature and extent of their integration into United Kingdom society, the close family unit in which they lived and their Congolese citizenship, the matters on which Mr Lindsay relied did not create such a strong case for the children that their interest in remaining in the United Kingdom could have outweighed the considerations on which the decision-maker relied in striking the balance in the proportionality exercise . .’


Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge


[2013] UKSC 74, [2013] 1 WLR 3690, [2014] 1 All ER 638, [2013] WLR(D) 458, [2014] Imm AR 479, [2014] INLR 262, [2014] 1 FCR 141, 2014 SC (UKSC) 75, UKSC 2013/0100


Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC


European Convention on Human Rights 8, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55, Immigration Rules 353, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 3.1




CitedZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
CitedHH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Appeal fromZ, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Nov-2012
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 . .
CitedEB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
CitedBeoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
CitedNeulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .

Cited by:

CitedHesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
CitedMM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.518469