Parents’ immigration history is relevant to whether it’s reasonable to remove settled children from the UK
Senior judges have found (yet again) that children can be punished for the sins of their parents, giving a green-light to the Home Office to remove families from the UK (even if they have not committed any crime).
The Upper Tribunal has given guidance on the correct approach to statistical evidence in the context of dental x-rays in age assessment disputes.
There is a growing judicial consensus that the demanding test for serious offenders to resist deportation on grounds of family life ought to be applied with some flexibility.
Severe delays are not uncommon in immigration and asylum cases, as many applicants discover to their dismay. Here, Home Office inertia was a key reason why a woman’s deportation became unlawful.
Minimum income requirements for spousal visas are lawful, but breach duty to safeguard children – says UK Supreme Court
For families divided by Home Office income requirements, this latest case on the human right to family life offers mixed results. While the main challenge to the Rules failed, parts of the policy were heavily criticised.
The Home Office accused Mr Iqbal of cheating in his English language test. They cancelled his visa and detained him and his wife. The High Court has now found that the Home Office had failed to prove he cheated and had detained him unlawfully.
The law on automatic removal of “foreign criminals” from the UK imposes no duty on Secretary of State to keep making deportation orders after a revocation decision.
The Home Office accuses detainees of deception frequently.
Resolving these disputes is not easy and, according to the Court of Appeal, requires careful analysis.
The Court of Appeal has asserted the relevance of the Immigration Rules in Article 8 appeals against deportation orders, taking a fine tooth-comb to Tribunal decisions that don’t attach sufficient weight to the Rules.