AAO v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 840 (22 July 2011)

AAO v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 840 (22 July 2011)

There was at most a weak family life between the appellant and her daughter, insufficient to engage Article 8 or to constitute an interference requiring justification. Even if Article 8 was engaged, refusal of entry was proportionate and justified by the need for immigration control and to avoid recourse to public funds. No breach of Article 8 occurred.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 840
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: A A O; Respondent / Defendant: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Family Reunion, Dependent Relatives, Proportionality, Immigration Rules (rule 317)
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Family Reunion Dependent Relatives Proportionality Immigration Rules (rule 317)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A A O

Appellant / Claimant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of entry clearance to a dependent parent to join an adult child in the UK breaches Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal adequately assessed the Article 8 claim
  3. 3 Whether financial and emotional dependency between adult child and parent constitutes family life under Article 8

Ratio Decidendi

There was at most a weak family life between the appellant and her daughter, insufficient to engage Article 8 or to constitute an interference requiring justification. Even if Article 8 was engaged, refusal of entry was proportionate and justified by the need for immigration control and to avoid recourse to public funds. No breach of Article 8 occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed