Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Human rights, private life, paragraph 276ADE, suitability and ties


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


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

Bossadi (paragraph 276ADE; suitability; ties) [2015] UKUT 00042 (IAC) is very short but somewhat less than sweet. A panel of the tribunal tries to row back from the earlier case of Ogundimu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 60 (IAC) and suggest that the now scrapped (and so largely academic) “no ties” provision of paragraph 276ADE in the private life section of the Immigration Rules is “objective”, judges aren’t supposed to accept evidence from witnesses and ties on the basis of ancestry, blood, colour or whatever are sufficient for someone to be sent “home”.

The official footnote:

1) Being able to meet the requirements of paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules requires being able to meet the suitability requirements set out in paragraph 276ADE(1). It is because this subparagraph contains suitability requirements that it is not possible for foreign criminals relying on private life grounds to circumvent the provisions of the Rules dealing with deportation of foreign criminals.

(2) The requirement set out in paragraph 276ADE (vi) (in force from 9 July 2012 to 27 July 2014) to show that a person “is aged 18 years or above, has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) but has no ties (including social, cultural or family) with the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK”, requires a rounded assessment as to whether a person’s familial ties could result in support to him in the event of his return, an assessment taking into account both subjective and objective considerations and also consideration of what lies within the choice of a claimant to achieve.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

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.


One Response

  1. Hmm. Rehearing in late February does little good when the country guidance is being heard in early March.
    Clearly the FTT was referencing the wrong rule, but the “no ties” rule was also part of the old rules on deportation (old 399A(b)) – indeed Ogundimu concerned those rules- and therefore the suitablity requirements were irrelevant: it is a pity the UT couldn’t work this out, although I suppose it would still have come to the same findings with regards to the “no ties” test.

    I suppose the tribunal’s confusion over the meaning of “no ties” is largely academic now (except for a small number of appeals such as this one) as there are no transitional provisions so decisions even on applications made prior to the change in the rules will apply the rules in force at time of decision.