Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Presidential guidance on errors of law and proportionality
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
This is an interesting case in which an entry clearance application by an elderly relative was refused by the ECO but the appeal allowed on human rights grounds by a First-tier Tribunal judge, whose decision is here upheld by President McCloskey. It is also interesting because it sounds like an appeal under the Adult Dependent Relative rules may finally have reached the Upper Tribunal for reporting: the appeal was allowed on human rights grounds but dismissed under the Immigration Rules, but paragraph 27 seems to suggest that the latter decision still seems to be the subject of a live appeal.
The official headnote
(i) A tribunal’s failure to make clear findings about family life is not per se erroneous in law where its existence has not been contested in the Secretary of State’s decision and has not been challenged at the appeal hearing and the tribunal’s decision is not otherwise unsustainable in law.
(ii) The question of whether there is family life in a child/grandchild context requires a finding of something over and above normal emotional ties and will invariably be intensely fact sensitive.
(iii) In error of law appeals, the Upper Tribunal should apply the principles in Edwards v Bairstow  AC 14 .
(iv) In appeals involving the proportionality of an interference with a Convention right, the ultimate question for the Upper Tribunal is whether the interference is proportionate, per Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department  2 AC 167.
As a reminder, Edwards v Bairstow is authority for it being very rare for factual findings to challengable on appeal.