Case summaries

Judicial review to challenge the failure/refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SoS”) to determine the application of the applicant’s spouse and two youngest children for family reunification in the UK on the following grounds: a failure to apply the SoS published policy; irrationality; breach of all the family members’ rights under Art. 8 ECHR; and (regarding the two children in the UK), breach of the duties owed under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).

The Upper Tribunal found that:

1) the Home Office family reunification policy embraces a series of flexible possibilities for proof of identity;

2) the reunion applications were not examined and determined which involves a public law misdemeanour within the applicant’s grounds for challenge; and

3) in any case where withdrawal or a consent order is proposed judicial scrutiny and adjudication are required.

Where an asylum application is made by an unaccompanied child, the tribunal must take into consideration the best interests of the child in its examination (for example, education). The decision includes a presumption of minority that the tribunal must rebut in order to allow for the transfer of the applicant. 

Article 17 forms an integral part of the Dublin Regulation and should be applied in a manner which furthers the aims and objectives of the Regulation in general. Article 17 is a justiciable right and should be particularly relied upon in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures of the host Member State. Article 17 is not subject to a prior assessment of non-satisfaction of Article 8 (family reunification) of that same Regulation.

Applicants who engaged with Dublin authorities should be subjected to less onerous standards when assessing the success of an Article 8 ECHR claim.

The UK Upper Tribunal held that there had been a failure of the Secretary of State to lawfully exercise the discretion conferred by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation and ordered the Secretary of State to admit the applicant to the UK, based on: (1) the deficiencies of the Italian asylum system in the present case, namely the lack of sufficient expedition to register the asylum application and initiate Dublin proceedings; (2) the deficiencies and delay in the guardianship system in Italy; (3) the expected lengthy procedures for a “take charge” request and subsequent Dublin transfer; (4) the need to take into account the best interests of children.

It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.

The Immigration Rules (“the Rules”) minimum income requirements (“the MIR”) for individuals who have a right to live in the UK who wish to bring their non-EEA citizen spouses to live with them are not open to legal challenge. 

The Rules fail unlawfully to give effect to the duty of the Secretary of State (“the SoS”) in respect of the welfare of children under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”), however the challenge to the validity of the Rules was dismissed.

To ensure that their decisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”) however, revisions to instructions for entry clearance officers (“the Instructions”) are necessary.

This case concerned the back dating of child benefit for families who were previously in the asylum procedure. 

Switzerland is not the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, since the unaccompanied minor lives in a foster family in the Netherlands and the Dutch authorities should take into consideration the factors of Article 6 (3) Dublin III Regulation, including the views of the minor. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.

D.T., who possesses a leave to remain in Poland due to humanitarian considerations, appealed the Municipal Appeal Board’s decision to uphold the decision refusing to award her child benefits. Relying on a purposive interpretation of the applicable regulations regarding social welfare and the access of foreigners to the labour market, the Court decided to set aside both decisions, while stressing that the deciding body shall be bound by the legal analysis contained in the Court order. 

The applicants are seeking damages on the basis of a violation of article 8 ECHR in respect of the refusal of the Swiss authorities to permit the family reunification of an Egyptian son with his father, who has Egyptian and Swiss nationality.

Asserting a violation of the procedural rules by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (‘OFPRA’) when a child’s legal representative or any ad hoc administrator was absent from a hearing, the National Court of Asylum (‘CNDA’) annulled OFPRA’s decision and sent the case back to it to be decided again under the correct circumstances.

The CNDA sets out the limits to the principle of family unity in such as it is not applicable to the child of a refugee, the refugee having obtained that status only through application of the said principle following her marriage with a refugee not being the father of the child.