Court of Session examines interplay between Article 8 and the Immigration Rules

26 April 2015 by

Photo credit: Guardian

Photo credit: Guardian

This week we welcome to the Blog our new team of commentators on Scottish human rights issues – Fraser Simpson, David Scott and Thomas Raine.

Khan v. The Advocate General for Scotland, [2015] CSIH 29 – read judgment.

A Pakistani national refused leave to remain in the UK after expiry of his visitor visa has had his successful challenge to that decision upheld by Scotland’s civil appeal court, the Inner House of the Court of Session.

The request for leave to remain was initially refused under the Immigration Rules due to a lack of “insurmountable obstacles” preventing Mr Khan from continuing his family life in Pakistan. That decision was reduced (quashed) by the Lord Ordinary – a first-instance judge in the Outer House of the Court of Session – as although the decision had been in accordance with the Immigration Rules, the decision-maker had failed to undertake a proportionality assessment of the decision as required under Article 8 ECHR (read the Outer House judgment here).

The Advocate General submitted a reclaiming motion (a request for a review of the decision) on the basis that the lack of a proportionality assessment was not a “material” error in law. Lord Eassie, delivering the opinion of the Inner House, upheld the decision that the refusal of leave to remain was not in accordance with Article 8.

Facts

The petitioner (claimant), Mr Khan, had entered the UK in 2005 on a visitor visa that expired in November 2010. He met a British national immediately prior to the expiration of his visa, married her in September 2011, and subsequently applied for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a UK national in November 2011. This request was eventually refused in January 2012. Mr Khan requested reconsideration of the decision but the Border Agency maintained its decision on 26 March 2013, applying the newly-updated Immigration Rules. Removal directions were issued that day.

Outer House Proceedings

The petitioner challenged the refusal of leave to remain on the basis that it was contrary to his Article 8 rights.  The application of the Immigration Rules to situations involving Article 8 rights was considered in Izuazu (Article 8 –new rules), [2013] UKUT 00045 (available here) and the relevant principles were summarised in paragraphs 41-42 of that judgment:

“41. Where the claimant does not meet the requirements of the rules it will be necessary for the judge to go on to make an assessment of Article 8 applying the criteria established by law.

42. When considering whether the immigration decision is a justified interference with the rights to family and/or private life, the provisions of the rules or other relevant statement of policy may again re-enter the debate but this time as part of the proportionality evaluation. Here the judge will be asking whether the interference was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim in questions and a fair balance as to the competing interests.”

These principles – previously approved by the Inner House in MS v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2013] CSIH 52 – result in the need for consideration of a “full… Article 8 challenge” if an arguable case exists that application of the Immigration Rules did not address relevant concerns in a manner consistent with Article 8 requirements. In considering the refusal of leave to remain, the Lord Ordinary noted that it was centred around the lack of “insurmountable obstacles” to the continuation of the family life in Pakistan. Again referring to Izuazu (at paragraph 53), sole reliance on this would constitute a failure to “comply with principles of the established law” resulting in a breach of  Article 8. The Strasbourg jurisprudence discussed pointed towards such obstacles being a factor to be considered in the proportionality assessment, as opposed to a minimum requirement that must be satisfied before a challenge on such grounds could succeed.

The Lord Ordinary held that the Border Agency had viewed the existence of “insurmountable obstacles” as a minimum requirement. The lack of a full proportionality assessment of the decision, taking in to account all the relevant circumstances, meant the refusal fell short of the requirements under Article 8. Accordingly, the Lord Ordinary annulled the refusal of leave to remain.

Inner House Proceedings

The Advocate General – the UK Government’s senior Scottish law officer – requested a review of this decision. He accepted that the failure to undertake a proportionality assessment was an error in law, but argued that this error was not material and should not have resulted in reduction of the decision. In support of this, it was submitted that in order to rely upon the protections of Article 8, the petitioner was required to establish “exceptional circumstances”. The Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Rodrigues da Silva, Hoogkamer v. The Netherlands, (2007) 44 EHRR 34 (available here). It was submitted that this judgment set out the need for “exceptional circumstances” in situations where the family life being relied upon by the petitioner was established and developed at a time when the immigration status of the individual was “precarious”. Finally, the Advocate General submitted that the application for leave to remain was bound to fail even if a proportionality assessment had been undertaken, and this should have resulted in the Lord Ordinary refusing to reduce the decision.

These submissions were rejected by the Inner House, which refused the reclaiming motion. It refused to accept the requirement for “exceptional circumstances” to be established before Article 8 could be relied upon where the immigration status of the individual had been “precarious” during the development of the relevant relationships. The passage relied upon by the Advocate General (specifically the last sentence of paragraph 39) was merely a comment of the European Court on the likely operation of the Convention provision, not a legal condition. The need for a proportionality assessment to evaluate the entire circumstances of the case under Article 8 was well established. The failure to undertake such an assessment could not be considered immaterial as there was no guarantee that the conclusion of such an assessment would result in the decision being declared proportionate. Additionally, the Inner House emphasised that even if the decision had been proportionate, the failure to consider the relevant legal questions and considerations was sufficient to result in the reduction of the decision.

Comment

The judgment of the Outer House, and the Inner House’s refusal to overturn it, emphasises the importance of the procedural safeguards within Article 8. Even in the event that decisions are taken in accordance with the Immigration Rules, there is a need to consider whether a proper proportionality test has been satisfied as required under Article 8.

The Lord Ordinary issued some interesting obiter comments regarding the potential relevance of the petitioner’s wife’s EU citizenship. In Sanade and others (British children-Zambrano-Dereci), [2010] UKUT 00048 (IAC) the claimants faced deportation following the commission of serious criminal offences. That would have resulted in separation from their children and spouses. In considering Article 8, the Tribunal heard arguments based upon Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. This prevents states from taking measures that would deprive EU citizens of the genuine enjoyment of a right conferred as a result of their EU citizenship.

The Lord Ordinary considered that such EU rights would be “an additional and weighty factor to be thrown into the balance when considering the article 8 ECHR question of proportionality”.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: