Adoptions from Abroad: Article 8 Fails to Assist

12 November 2015 by

SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section [2015] EWCA Civ 1109

A child (SM) who was adopted in Algeria by a French couple living in the UK was refused an application for a right of entry as a family member. Having been overturned in the Upper Tribunal, the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. SM was not, the court held, a family member of Mr M. A keen human rights observer might think this was an apparent infringement of article 8 ECHR (the right to family life).

This post will look at two questions:

  1. Why was SM not considered to be a ‘family member’?
  2. Where was article 8 hiding?

Mr and Mrs M, a French couple of Algerian origin, living in the UK, sought to adopt a child from Algeria. In 2009, they underwent an assessment of their suitability to be legal guardians in Algeria under the kafalah system (Islamic alternative to adoption). They were found to be suitable, applied to be legal guardians, waited the three months required by Algerian law and were issued with a Legal Custody Deed in March 2011.

The couple and their child lived in Algeria for a year before Mr M, who has a permanent right of residence in the UK, returned to work in the UK as a chef. An application was made in May 2012 to confer upon SM a right of entry as a family member of Mr M. That was refused by the ECO for the following reason:

“…not satisfied that your adoption is legally recognised in the UK and therefore I am not satisfied that under UK law you are related as claimed or that the national of whom you claim to be a family member is a qualified person.”

Why was SM not considered to be a family member?

The European Citizenship Directive sets out a number of principles seeking to promote the free movement and residence of persons and conferring that right on family members. But where a person does not fall in the Directive’s definition of family members, then the rules to be applied are the rules of the Member State.

What is the definition of a ‘family member’ for the purposes of the Directive?

  • Article 2(2) of the Directive defines a ‘family member’ as a spouse, a registered partner, a direct descendant under the age of 21, and dependent direct relatives in the ascending line;
  • Article 3(2) of the Directive requires that a Member State shall facilitate entry for ‘any other family members’ not falling in the article 2(2) definition but who are dependants or household members in the country from which they have come.

In addition, there are two relevant Immigration Regulations:

  • Regulation 7 provides that a person should be treated as a ‘family member’ if they are a spouse or civil partner, or direct descendants who are under 21 or dependants;
  • Regulation 8 provides that an ‘extended family member’ is a person who does not fall in the definition of Regulation 7 but who satisfies other conditions under Regulation 8.

There are also two relevant UK Immigration rules:

  • S.309A provides the circumstances where a de facto adoption shall be regarded as having taken place;
  • S.309B provides that where there is no de facto adoption, prospective adopters should obtain a Certificate of Eligibility from the Department for Education first.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Lord Justice Laws, looked first at whether SM was a ‘family member’ in accordance with Regulation 7 and Article 2.

An adopted child is treated in law as the natural child of the adopters so SM could fall in this category of ‘direct’ descendants. However, the Member State can make its own rules defining what foreign adoptions it recognises and the UK does not recognise adoptions in Algeria. In addition, Mr and Mrs M had not obtained a Certificate of Eligibility in accordance with the UK Immigration Rules.

What about overriding principles of EU law which might help? EU legislation and communications require the Member State to act in the best interests of the child. The court accepted that the UK’s arrangements gave effect to both the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-Country Adoption and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, the UK immigration rules were lawful and under those rules, SM was not a family member.

Secondly, the court looked at Regulation 8 and Article 3.

But no luck for SM here either. If the Directive permits the Member State to restrict the forms of adoption it will recognise in the best interests of children, then article 3 cannot contradict that position. Even if previous tribunals found that SM was a ‘relative’, the Directive gives clear permission to the UK to make its own rules.

So what happened to article 8 ECHR?

Peculiarly, the human rights argument seems to have fallen away without so much as a whimper. To see why, we must look back at the earlier decisions.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), article 8 was considered. Given that Mr M’s wife would not be able to join him in the UK if the child remained in Algeria, there was a clear interference with article 8. So was the interference proportionate?

In this instance, the FTT found that the interference was proportionate: the couple have ties to Algeria and family there, and SM was settled; by contrast there was no family support in the UK, and, it found, scant regard was had for the best interests of the child. Therefore, the interference was lawful and proportionate. In other words, there was no breach of article 8.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal (UT) looked at the definition of an ‘extended family member’ under Regulation 8. It held that the Regulation must be read or interpreted to comply with article 8 ECHR (under the provisions of section 3 Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998). Although SM would not be defined as such under the regulation alone, she would be considered a ‘relative’ and a family member with the assistance of article 8.

This was subsequently overturned in the Court of Appeal for a very simple reason. The Upper Tribunal had (implicitly) accepted the FTT finding that the refusal of an EEA family entrance permit involved no violation of article 8 ECHR. The section 3 HRA interpretation provision should only be done where without it there would be a breach of the Convention rights. Therefore, the UT interpretation was unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances.

Without the assistance of article 8, SM was not deemed to be a family member or an extended family member and the refusal for a visa was upheld.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: