BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) >> The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Respondent [2010] UKUT B1 (10 December 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2010/B1.html Cite as: [2010] UKUT B1 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IAC-FH-KH-V1
BAILII temporary Citation Number: [2010] UKUT B1
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/13542/2009
Heard at Manchester
n 15th November 2010
Determination Promulgated
On 10th December 2010
Appellant
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Barnes, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor
For the Respondent: Ms Vidal of Counsel instructed by Duncan Lewis & Co. Solicitors
Background
The Appellant's Criminal History
The Respondent's Family Life
The Designated Immigration Judge's Determination
"I find that the Appellant has developed a significant and substantial relationship with those children and that the Appellant is acting as a father within the family unit. I do find that the relationship between the Appellant and [ ] is a substantial and significant relationship akin to marriage. I do not find that they have proved that they went through any religious ceremony in Birmingham. However I am satisfied that the relationship is of such significance that can genuinely be characterised as family life and that the best interests of the children is such that the Appellant should not be removed from the UK. Were it not for the children my view with regard to the matter may be [sic] different. However I find that the disruption and interference in the family lives of the children and therefore of the Appellant and [ ] would be of such significance that it is not proportionally justified to remove the Appellant from the UK."
The Grounds of Application
Submissions
The Hearing
Findings and Conclusions
(1) Family life
(ii) Striking the balance
"Now I would certainly not say that such an objective is in itself objectionable. Sometimes I accept that it will be reasonable and proportionate to take that course. Indeed Ekinci still seems to me just such a case. The Appellant's immigration history was appalling and he was being required to travel no further than to Germany and to wait for no longer than a month for a decision on his application. Other obvious relevant considerations will be whether for example the applicant has arrived in this country illegally (say concealed in the back of a lorry) for good reason or ill. To advance a genuine asylum claim would of course be good reason. To enrol as a student would not. Also relevant would be for how long the Secretary of State has delayed in dealing with the case – see in this regard EB (Kosovo) v SSHD [2008] UKHL 41. In an Article 8 family case the prospective length and degree of family disruption involved in going abroad for an entry clearance certificate will always be highly relevant. And there may be good reason to apply the policy if the ECO abroad is better placed than the immigration authorities here to investigate the claim, perhaps as to the genuineness of a marriage or a relationship claimed between family members, less good reason if the policy may ultimately result in a second Section 65 appeal here with the Appellant abroad and unable, therefore, to give live evidence."
Summary
Decision
Signed Date
Senior Immigration Judge Taylor
(Judge of the Upper Tribunal)