The Court of Appeal has recently, in the case of PT (Sri Lanka) v Entry Clearance Officer, Chennai [2016] EWCA Civ 612, sought to set out the law as to the circumstances in which an adult child can be regarded as enjoying family life with his parents and/or siblings.
Undertaking Article 8 considerations with a reference to the correct legal principles, especially that set out in caselaw, is paramount as noted in PT(Sri Lanka). In addition to relevant considerations, the Court of Appeal however also raised several criticisms:
-
The Court criticised the lack of reference by the Tribunal to the relevant case of Ghising v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKUT 00160 (IAT) which had been decided over a year previously, or indeed to any of the domestic or Strasbourg authorities reviewed in it.
-
There was also criticism directed at the respective representatives before the Tribunal, with the Court stating that, “Although neither party was represented by counsel, I would have expected a competent immigration consultant and, perhaps still more, a Home Office Presenting Officer to be sufficiently familiar with the relevant case-law to ensure that it was placed before the Tribunal”.
-
The Court noted that in their considerations, matters before it were rendered more difficult by the fact that they did not have a clear picture of what the evidence before the First Tier Judge consisted of. The Court did not have before it the original application to the Entry Clearance Officer or any materials that accompanied it; nor did they have the bundles in the form that they were before the First Tier Tribunal.
-
The Court was also critical of the fact that the Appellant had lodged for the purposes of the appeal before them, a number of new materials, including published reports on South Asian family norms and new witness statements from his family members. It was observed that as those advising him should have appreciated, that material was not admissible. The only question before the Court of Appeal whether the First Tier Tribunal reached a conclusion that was open to it in law on the evidence that was before it.
Background in Summary:
The Appellant, a Sri Lankan national, was born on 26 June 1991. On 3 August 2010, his father was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. In February 2012, the Appellant and his mother and sisters applied for entry clearance to join the father in the UK. At that date the Appellant was aged 20. His sisters were still under 18. The Appellant’s application was refused 18 April 2012 by the Entry Clearance Officer however his mother and sister’ s applications were successful and they came to the UK shortly afterwards. The Appellant was the only member of the immediate family left in Sri Lanka.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (the FTT) relied on paragraph 317 of the Immigration Rules, and it was also contended that refusal would represent an unlawful interference with the Appellant’s rights under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights by preventing him from enjoying family life with his parents and siblings. Both tiers of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds raised. The Appellant appealed directly to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal:
The challenge to the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of article 8.
It was noted that the FTT Judge had found that the Appellant failed at the first hurdle. He was an adult, and while financially dependent on the rest of his family in the UK, there was considered to be no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that this relationship would acquire the protection of Article 8 without evidence of further elements of dependency. It was concluded by the FTT Judge that it would be proportionate for the Appellant as an adult to continue his life in Sri Lanka. In short, the FTT held that article 8 was not engaged but that if it was the interference with the Appellant’s family life was justified.
In brief, the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion was that the FTT’s conclusion that article 8 was not engaged was justified by the fact that the Appellant was an adult and that there were no special ties of dependency which should bring him within the ambit of Article 8.
The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal as it was considered arguable that the FTT Judge had not correctly stated the law as to the circumstances in which an adult child could be regarded as enjoying family life with his parents and/or siblings; and that if the correct approach had been taken to that question, the FTT Judge ‘s decision that article 8 was not engaged was unsustainable on the facts.
Relevant Caselaw Considered:
-
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 630
-
R (Gurung) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 8
-
Ghising v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKUT 00160 (IAT)
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v HK (Turkey) [2010] EWCA Civ 583
-
AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 32
-
Etti-Adegbolu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1319
-
RP (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 825
-
AA v United Kingdom (Application no 8000/08)
-
R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27
-
Kugathas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 31
-
Kaya v Germany (Application no 31753/02)
-
Bouchelkia v France (1998) 25 EHRR 686
-
Boughanemi v France (1996) 22 EHRR 228
-
S v United Kingdom (1984) DR 196
Hi Alice.
Do you have up to date information on this application?
Olive
Hello Olive, not currently but will update if I come across relevant updates. Kind regards. Alice