Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1645 (23 November 2005)

Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1645 (23 November 2005)

It is properly arguable that the immigration judge erred in law by inadequately addressing the Family Reunion Policy and mischaracterising the applicant's case as seeking an exception to the Immigration Rules rather than falling within policy.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1645
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Chengjie Miao; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Family Reunion Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Family Reunion Policy Article 8 ECHR Immigration Rules Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chengjie Miao

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the immigration judge erred in law by failing to properly consider the Secretary of State's Family Reunion Policy
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's circumstances fell within the Family Reunion Policy
  3. 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR was misapplied as a means to circumvent Immigration Rules

Ratio Decidendi

It is properly arguable that the immigration judge erred in law by inadequately addressing the Family Reunion Policy and mischaracterising the applicant's case as seeking an exception to the Immigration Rules rather than falling within policy.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application allowed with time estimate of half-a-day, to be heard by a court of three judges, one of whom may be a puisne judge and one of whom to have expertise in immigration law.
  • Costs to be in the appeal.