|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> EK v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 926 (07 June 2006)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 926
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No. IM/05792/2004]
B e f o r e :
VICE PRESIDENT, COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
LORD JUSTICE WALL
|- v -|
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||RESPONDENT|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR J JOHNSON (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, London WC2B 4TS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"317. The requirements to be met by a person seeking indefinite leave to enter … the United Kingdom as the … dependent relative of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom are that the person
(i) is related to a person present and settled in the United Kingdom in one of the following ways: …
(f) the … daughter … over the age of 18 if living alone outside the United Kingdom in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances and mainly dependent financially on relatives settled in the United Kingdom".
" You are aged 23. You are an able bodied person with no apparent long-term medical condition. You are currently living with your Mother, Aunt who has three sons, and your other Aunt who has one daughter. You live in a three bedroom house with modern facilities such as gas, electric, television, and radio. You state that you are supported financially by your Father in the United Kingdom.
 Given your current living circumstances and that you have friends in the village and other family members that you see regularly each month I am not satisfied that you live in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances that would entitle you under the Immigration Rules to settle with your Father in the UK".
The entry clearance officer added that the decision was considered to be proportionately justified in the interests of immigration control. No separate issue arises on this appeal under the Human Rights Act.
"I have considered the cases of PAW and Alyha BEGUM to which I was referred. In those cases it was held that an appellant could be regarded as living alone, although physically there was another person in the same household because that other person was not either willing or able to give the appellant in those cases the support necessary."
Mr Gill told us that the two earlier cases could not now be traced, but he submitted that this quotation suggests that the AIT in the present case was applying too prescriptive a test.
"I first say in general terms, however, that it is necessary to look at the evidence for what it tells us about what is going to happen, not only now but for a reasonable time in the future. [Counsel for the Secretary of State] fairly said that, although strictly the question is as to the position at the date of the decision, it could hardly be reasonable to decide the case on the basis that a situation existed at the date of the decision but was not going to exist in the immediate future. I think, for instance, of the evidence about the position of the brother, who may have been available to protect the applicant at the immediate date of the decision. It seems to me that it would not be right to rely on that finding alone without averting at all to the question of how long that situation is going to last".
Order: Appeal dismissed.