The judgment in Santos, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 609 (Admin) is quite lengthy, running to 163 paragraphs, however makes most interesting reading in relation to the issues raised.
The Upper Tribunal in their recent decision of PD and Others (Article 8 – conjoined family claims) Sri Lanka  UKUT 108 (IAC) correctly refused to accede to the approach, that in considering the applicability of the 7Year Rule, the claim of a “qualifying child” concerning a family unit, should be severed from that of the parents who did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Not only did the Upper Tribunal refuse to do so but also in allowing the appeal, distinguished in relevant parts, the Court of Appeal decision of EV (Philippines) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 874.
Among other considerations and factors, the Upper Tribunal in PD and Others noted in relation to the relevant qualifying child that, “Critical milestones in both his personal and educational development have been passed and are now looming”; that he was “ an intellectually gifted young man who has made excellent academic progress” and also observed that the critical stage of his personal and educational development had been reached.
The Home Office published a new policy on 19 February 2016 as regards Further Submissions from failed asylum claimants. There still remains the general requirement for claimants to submit their further submissions in person at Liverpool( subject to certain exceptions), however a new stated Policy Intention has been published. This includes relevantly, requiring protection based further submissions from failed asylum seekers to be made in person in Liverpool. Further submissions on non-protection human rights grounds are required to be made by means of a valid charged application by post to the Home Office.
The Court of Appeal in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v JZ (Zambia)  EWCA Civ 116 has just recently considered whether both tiers of the Tribunal correctly applied paragraphs 398 to 399A of the Immigration Rules in a case where a young man was convicted of serious offences. The Court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in allowing his appeal.