TM (Jamaica) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 178 (06 February 2007)

TM (Jamaica) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 178 (06 February 2007)

The appellants failed to satisfy the requirements of Immigration Rule 297(i) as the Adjudicator found the sponsor did not have sole responsibility for their upbringing and there were not serious or compelling family or other considerations making exclusion undesirable. The Adjudicator's findings on the evidence, including the issue of the younger sister's sexual activity, did not amount to an error of law. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate to immigration control. The Tribunal did not err in law or act unfairly.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 178
Parties
Claimants/appellants: TM (Jamaica) & ANR; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Indefinite Leave to Remain, Article 8 ECHR, Child Welfare, Immigration Rules HC395 Rule 297
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Indefinite Leave to Remain Article 8 ECHR Child Welfare Immigration Rules HC395 Rule 297

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TM (Jamaica) & ANR

Claimants/appellants

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants satisfied the requirements of Immigration Rule 297 for entry clearance as children of a settled parent
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of the appellants breached their Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator and Tribunal erred in law in their assessment of the evidence, particularly regarding the younger sister's sexual activity

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to satisfy the requirements of Immigration Rule 297(i) as the Adjudicator found the sponsor did not have sole responsibility for their upbringing and there were not serious or compelling family or other considerations making exclusion undesirable. The Adjudicator's findings on the evidence, including the issue of the younger sister's sexual activity, did not amount to an error of law. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate to immigration control. The Tribunal did not err in law or act unfairly.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed