Case summaries

An asylum applicant who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must still be regarded as a “minor” for the purposes of that provision.

The Appellant and the appellant’s  children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had been granted a permanent right of residency in Sweden as a refugee - despite them not being able to prove their identities. Due to the appellant’s lack of relevant documentation for her and the children,  the court had to consider the circumstances in which a  person can be granted alleviation of evidentiary burden in terms of proving their identity.

The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal and held that the appellant and the children would be granted an alleviation of evidentiary burden. It further referred the case back to the Swedish Migration Agency who would have to complete a DNA-test aimed at establishing the kinship of the family and subsequently try the case again. 

In the case of doubts about family relationships, both the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) and the Austrian embassy abroad must for the purpose of family reunification enable applicants to have a DNA-analysis carried out at their request and inform them of this possibility. The purpose of this DNA-analysis is to enable the applicant to eliminate existing doubts about a family relationship and thus to achieve family reunification.

The applicants appealed the decision to deny family reunification and family extension in relation to the refugee status of their daughter. The Administration denied this claim based on the fact that the applicants have a different nationality than their daughter, which would contravene the requirement established in article 40.a) of Law 12/2009. Article 41 of said Act, however, addresses this specific situation; However, the requirement of developing this provision by regulation had not been complied by Spain. The Court assesses whether this article should be applicable in the current case, despite not presenting the requirement of regulation, and concludes that the similarity of the wording of articles 40 and 41 is enough as to deem the latter applicable.

The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Eastern High Court that it was not in contravention of the ECHR Article 8 that a Syrian man with temporary protection status in Denmark had to wait 3 years for family reunification with his spouse who was still in Syria. Further, the Supreme Court held that the decision was not in breach of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR.

Family unity and the best interests of the child are high priorities when applying the Dublin III Regulation.  A child who has applied for international protection in Germany but has members of his family in Greece is entitled to family unity with them in Germany. The Dublin III Regulation specifies that this transfer should be carried out within six months of a Member State’s acceptance of the take charge or take back request. The time period to transfer starts from the Member State’s acceptance of the request. The right of the asylum seeker to be transferred within said time-limit is a subjective right. Whilst Germany had accepted the take charge request they had only planned to transfer the applicants at a time after the six month deadline. An interim injunction was therefore necessary in order to ensure that the rights of the applicant were respected. 

Material dependency is a sign of the dependency of a family member on the applicant and it can be established in many different ways.

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.

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.

Regarding family reunification, individuals can be considered as belonging to the same family if there is a clear economic dependency, not merely because they have biological ties. In order to establish this dependency, the judge may use both national and international sources.