- BY Colin Yeo
Family life can be precarious even though Parliament forgot to mention it
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
Family life can be precarious even though Parliament forgot to mention it in the statutory considerations on Article 8. Or The Home Office May Have Its Cake And Eat It.
- That “precariousness” is a criterion of relevance to family life as well as private life cases is an established part of Article 8 jurisprudence: see e.g. R (Nagre) v SSHD[2013] EWHC 720 (Admin)and Jeunesse v Netherlands, app.no.12738/10 (GC).
- The “little weight” provisions of s.117B(4)(a) and (5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are confined to ” private life” established by a person at a time when their immigration status is unlawful or precarious. However, this does not mean that when answering the “public interest question” posed by s117A(2)-(3) a court or tribunal should disregard “precarious family life” criteria set out in established Article 8 jurisprudence. Given that ss.117A-D considerations are not exhaustive, in certain cases it may be an error of law for a court or tribunal to disregard relevant public interest considerations.
Source: Rajendran (s117B – family life) [2016] UKUT 138 (IAC) (7 March 2016)
SHARE
Relevant articles chosen for you
Colin Yeo
Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.
