Summary

Summary Immigration Law: Families & Children under Article 8 (LLB)

0 purchase

Module
Immigration Law

Institution
City University (City)

Families and Children under Article 8 Summarised Notes for the Immigration Law module, LLB, at City, University of London - can of course be used for other universities as well! Should be used with the full bundle of notes! Achieved a high First Class with these very well structured notes!

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 11 pages

View example

Uploaded on May 26, 2020
Number of pages 11
Written in 2019/2020
Type Summary

immigration law
immigration
law
llb
university
llb
echr
family life
article 8
forced marriage
children
unmarried couples
unmarried
appendix fm
appendix fm se
city university

law-notes Member since 5 year 301 documents sold

£2.99

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN UNDER ARTICLE 8

So e.g. if illegally entered, without lawful permission e.g. came in lorry or had student visa and did
not leave can consider if illegal immigrant allowed to stay using Art.8 or not meet immigration
rules e.g. financial but have insurmountable obstacles of family living abroad

 Judicial power on human right to family life being undermined by refusal grant immigration status
 No general right to have choice of country to establish your family life under the ECHR case law
 Court looks at degree of attachment +extent which adults chose to migrate and separate family
 APPENDIX FM – seeks to make family migration more difficult (quite high income levels) and to
define when a person may be allowed to stay who does not meet normal rules of APPENDIX FM
 Judges power to rule on proportionality with family life where not meet requirements of rules
 Cases where removal of an adult would affect children have raised particular difficulty because
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child come into play
 A child who is British or who has lived in the UK for seven years is given a special status under the
Rules and the 2014 Act

**PROBLEM Q – SEE IMMIGRATION RULES (E.G. FINANCIAL + ENGLISH REQUIREMENT OR GET
MONEY FROM FAMILY I.E. APPENDIX FM-SE), IF NO MONEY FALL BACK ON EX1 (ARE THERE
SERIOUS OBSTACLES + QUALIFYING CHILDREN), THEN LAST LAST CHANCE IS ART.8 CLAIM WHICH IS
NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN BUT VERY HARD
SO FOCUS IS ON THE RULES (APPENDIX FM) IF NOT CONSIDER ART.8**

ECHR APPROACH
AHMUT V NETHERLANDS [1996] – Refusal by Netherlands authorities grant a residence permit to a
Moroccan minor would have lived with father – who has dual Moroccan and Netherlands nationality
 Son still has strong links with linguistic + cultural environment of his country – still family there
 Applicant’s living apart due to the father’s conscious decision to settle in Netherlands rather than
remain in Morocco - father retained his original Moroccan nationality – not prevented in
maintaining the degree of family life which he himself opted for when moving to Netherlands in
the first place – no obstacle in returning to Morocco
 ARTICLE 8 does not guarantee a right to chose most suitable place to develop family life – by
sending son to boarding school – father had him to be cared for in Morocco – no need to going
into question whether sons relatives living in Morocco are willing and able to take care of him

LEGAL CONTEXT
 There is no enshrined right for a British resident to be joined in the UK by their family members
 s.1 (4) IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 –obliges the Secretary of State to make rules to govern certain
types of entry – does not require these to cover the admission of family members – an omission
that cannot be challenged under the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 – this is an omission of the
legislature which is immune from action
 Entry is governed by Immigration Rules and the applicant is not the UK resident but the foreign
national family member who wishes to enter and who must meet the requirements of the rules
 ODELOLA & MAHAD has confirmed that they represent statements of policy rather than legal
rights but they are nonetheless binding on the government
 There is no duty to consult nor abide by the outcome of a consultation
 The lack of statutory grounding for the entry of family migrants make it easier to restrict rights in
line with popular or government concerns
 Whether a family member gets leave to enter depends on the judgment of the entry clearance
officer as to whether they fulfil the requirements of the rules
 Immigration law is affected by EU Law and Human Rights norms –mainly Art.8 ECHR

1

,  ART.8 – has been influential in the development of the recent law
 Some restrictive government policies have been successfully challenged in the courts often using
Human Rights – particularly ARTICLE 8 ECHR
 The government clearly tried to take back some control of this area in the changes made to the
Immigration Rules following the consultation – these changes said to codify the approach case
owners and judges should take when considering family life under ARTICLE 8

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE (ART.8)
 Right to respect private and human life recognised in ECHR – and fundamental human right
 Included in DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948 and INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS 1966 – both forbid arbitrary + unlawful interference with family life
 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS 1966 – ARTICLE 12 –
“The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family which is the
natural and fundamental group unit of society”
 Domestic law – remedies breach through HRA, ARTICLE 8 ECHR –right respect private + family life
 s. 82(1)(b) NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 2002 provides that a person may
appeal to Tribunal if Secretary of State decided to refuse a human rights claim made to claimant
 Include family visas, over stayers and illegal entrants where human rights grounds explicitly raised
 ARTICLE 8 (2) – “shall be no interference by a public authority with exercise of this right except in
accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society in interests national security”
 Most disputed cases centre on ARTICLE 8(2) question of proportionality

Huang v SSHD [2007]– constitutionally important case
 Woman came to join husband + daughter in UK, not met rules, so relied on Art.8, judge said
where not meet rules and appeal on Art.8 grounds, judges can look at individual cases
 Government came to the court – immigration rules into account of family life
 Rules are proportionate – provision for spouses, children and people who have been living here
for a long time – if you cant meet the rules then not helpful
 Exceptionality test – immigration authority
 Must be removed that if an applicant qualifies for the grant of leave to enter or remain under the
rules and it is refused to leave the immigration appeal authority must allow such application
appeal by virtue of PARAGRAPH 21 (1) of PART 3 SCHEDULE 4 1999 ACT
 Constitutional case about relationship between executives and the parliament
 Parliament created appeal on ARTICLE 8 grounds, Immigration rules do not remove that right
 Made it clear Court or Tribunal to reach its own decision on proportionality

Keylor
challenged rule of age, said rule unfair, from Chile, wife only 17, spouse had to be 18 (this was rule),
she turned 18, then HO changed rules again and made it to 21, (HO done to address issue of forced
marriages), argued discrimination based on age, government justified to stop force marriages, Court
stated where is the proof that it stops forced marriages, government not have proof, Lord Wilson
stated it was a colossal interference to wait another 3 years as they meet all the other requirements
of the rules this case was one where the couple could have lived back home in Chile, no barriers to
not go back– here rule itself was struck down – rule itself was too strict and interfered with Art.8

Alvi v SSHD [2012]
This is a case of enormous constitutional significance held substantive changes in immigration rules
must be laid before parliament. The government could not rely on other sources such as prerogative
or guidelines. The decision rendered much of the points-based system and tools regulating family
migration illegal. The government incorporated everything into the Rules

2

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller law-notes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

69988 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling

Summary

Summary Immigration Law: Families & Children under Article 8 (LLB)

Document information

Subjects

Written for

Seller

Reviews received

Content preview