Fundamental Rights Agency > Research and analysis > Case Law
 
 
Access to

by charter article

by ECHR article

by deciding body

by type of case

by year

About Case Law

Case Law

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
26/03/2009
Legal provision International law
Area Immigration
Key facts of the case:

AF, a citizen of Jamaica, arrived in England in 1998. He applied for a student visa, and, when he married a British citizen, applied instead for leave to remain as a spouse. Neither application was dealt with. In 2000, he had a son with his wife. He also had a child from a previous relationship. In 2001, he was convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. He was told he was going to be deported and so applied for asylum. His appeal under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was dismissed because his wife and child could resettle in Jamaica with him, and his removal was justified as a prevention of crime under Article 8(2).

Main reasoning/argumentation:

When the original decision was made, none of AF’s children was seven. However, by the date of this appeal, two had turned seven, and, on the Secretary of State’s guidance, were relevant considerations to be taken into account by the immigration judge. Immigration would have a profound effect on AF’s wife and son, who had ADHD. He also had regular contact with his eldest child. In deciding whether the Art 8(2) justification outweighs the Art 8 interference, the Art 8 rights of the whole family must be considered, rather than just the eldest child.

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case:

Article 8 rights to family life of the whole family must be considered when balancing against Article 8(2) justifications in deportation cases. If a child is over 7, her or his ability to resettle in another country is a relevant consideration.

Results (sanctions) and key consequences or implications of the case:

Appeal allowed, and remitted to the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal for reconsideration, taking all the family’s Article 8 rights into consideration.