Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

IMMIGRATION: AS (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer [2008] EWCA Civ 149

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : as-somalia-v-entry-clearance-officer-2008-ewca-civ-149
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 29, 2008, 04:45 AM
Article ID : 88855

(Court of Appeal; Waller, Sedley and Moore-Bick LJJ; 29 February 2008)

The cousin sponsoring the children's application for entry clearance was a refugee from Somalia who had obtained permission to remain in the UK. The children were Somalian war orphans living in Ethiopia for whom the cousin had accepted financial responsibility. At the time of the application the children were being cared for by the cousin's mother-in-law, but they were then passed to a friend, and by the date of the appeal it was clear that the children were receiving inadequate care in Ethiopia. The immigration judge did not take this change into account; applying the exceptionality test, he rejected the appeal.

When hearing an appeal against refusal of an application for family reunion, the tribunal was only entitled to consider the circumstances at the time of the decision to refuse; it could not take into account any change of circumstances. However, the case was to be remitted for reconsideration applying the test of proportionality, rather than exceptionality. The children were entitled to reapply for entry clearance on basis of their new circumstances.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from