R (on the application of (1) Fauzia Abbassi & Ors (2) Mahubur Rahman & Ors (3) Omeanda Adams & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin).

News on April 21st, 2011 Comments Off on R (on the application of (1) Fauzia Abbassi & Ors (2) Mahubur Rahman & Ors (3) Omeanda Adams & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin).

The Court found that where a family had completed seven years’ residence before the policy was withdrawn, then they were entitled to the benefit of the policy, even where they had not sought to regularise their position until after its withdrawal.

Zambrano [2011] EUECJ C-34/09 (08 March 2011)

News on April 7th, 2011 Comments Off on Zambrano [2011] EUECJ C-34/09 (08 March 2011)

Zambrano establishes an important principle: The principle that an EU Citizen cannot be required by the operation of national immigration laws to depart the EU and that the ability of the EU Citizen to enjoy their fundamental rights can require a right of residence to be granted to non-EU family members. Whether this argument should take centre stage will depend on the facts of the case and an applicant’s prospects of success by more traditional routes. However, it should be run wherever appropriate and is likely to be particularly appropriate where a person has little or no prospect of succeeding under the Immigration Rules.


News on March 14th, 2011 Comments Off on UK BORDER AGENCY FEES

The Home Office have reviewed visa fees again. Please visit the UKBA’s website for the most up to date information.



ZN (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4; Best interests of a child

News on February 1st, 2011 Comments Off on ZN (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4; Best interests of a child

ZN (Tanzania)

Judgment is available at:


 In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

Noted the context in which the Strasbourg Court considered cases concerning children: see para. 22 and various international standards. 

  1. Identified Article 3(1) of the UNCRC as “the most relevant national and international obligation”, an international obligation “the spirit, if not the precise language, has also been translated into our national law… [by] section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009”. (para. 23) 
  2. Approved the UNHCR Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child (May 2008), para 1.1, on what is meant by ‘best interests’ (para. 25):“The term ‘best interests’ broadly describes the well-being of a child. . . . The CRC neither offers a precise definition, nor explicitly outlines common factors of the best interests of the child, but stipulates that: the best interests must be the determining factor for specific actions, notably adoption (Article 21) and separation of a child from parents against their will (Article 9); the best interests must be a primary (but not the sole) consideration for all other actions affecting children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies (Article 3).” 
  3. Considered that British nationality of the child is not a ‘trump’ card in cases concerning the deportation of the child’s parent or parents, but that it is of “particular importance” where deportation, if the child were to go with his or her parent, would effectively deprive him or her of his or her citizenship and attendant rights and benefits. (para. 30). 
  4. Emphasised the importance of not burdening children with any culpability of their parents, noting a change in the Strasbourg jurisprudence over time. (para. 20) 
  5. Emphasised the importance of consideration of the child’s views, and providing opportunity for these to be considered. (paras. 34-37). Lady Hale gave the lead judgment.  All the other judges agreed with her.  Lord Hope and Lord Kerr gave short judgments in agreement.  Interesting to note how strongly Lord Kerr put the matter of ‘best interests’ (para. 46):It is a universal theme of the various international and domestic instruments to which Lady Hale has referred that, in reaching decisions that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her best interests. This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all other considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other. It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other competing factors. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them. It is not necessary to express this in terms of a presumption but the primacy of this consideration needs to be made clear in emphatic terms. What is determined to be in a child’s best interests should customarily dictate the outcome of cases such as the present, therefore, and it will require considerations of substantial moment to permit a different result.