Updates, commentary and advice on immigration and asylum law
New course on Immigration Act 2016 available now

Family life can be precarious even though Parliament forgot to mention it

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.

  1. 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). 
  1. 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)

Colin Yeo
Colin Yeo A barrister specialising in UK immigration law at Garden Court Chambers in London, I have been practising in immigration law for 15 years. I am passionate about immigration law and founded and edit the Free Movement immigration law blog.

Not yet a member of Free Movement?

Sign up for as little as £20 per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all articles
  • Access to our forums
  • E-books for free
  • Access to all online training materials
  • Downloadable training certificates
Shares