Quila & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

Quila & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

The application of Immigration Rule 277 to the appellants, both spouses of UK citizens, is unlawful as it constitutes a disproportionate interference with their fundamental rights to marry and to family life. The rule's blanket application is not justified by the policy objective, as its impact on innocent couples far outweighs its speculative benefit in preventing forced marriages. The rule cannot lawfully be applied to these appellants, though the rule itself is not struck down.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Diego Andres Aguilar Quila; Interested Party: Amber Aguilar; Claimant/appellant: Shakira Bibi; Interested Party: Suhyal Mohammed; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; 1st Intervener: AIRE Centre; 2nd Interveners: Southall Black Sisters and the Henna Foundation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Right to Family Life, Right to Marry, Proportionality, Discrimination, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Right to Family Life Right to Marry Proportionality Discrimination Immigration Rules +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diego Andres Aguilar Quila

Claimant/appellant

Amber Aguilar

Interested Party

Shakira Bibi

Claimant/appellant

Suhyal Mohammed

Interested Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

AIRE Centre

1st Intervener

Southall Black Sisters and the Henna Foundation

2nd Interveners

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ban in Immigration Rule 277 on entry for settlement of foreign spouses aged 18-21 is lawful and proportionate, particularly as applied to spouses of UK citizens
  2. 2 Whether the rule unlawfully interferes with the right to marry and the right to family life under common law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
  3. 3 Whether the rule is discriminatory, especially in light of exceptions for armed forces personnel

Ratio Decidendi

The application of Immigration Rule 277 to the appellants, both spouses of UK citizens, is unlawful as it constitutes a disproportionate interference with their fundamental rights to marry and to family life. The rule's blanket application is not justified by the policy objective, as its impact on innocent couples far outweighs its speculative benefit in preventing forced marriages. The rule cannot lawfully be applied to these appellants, though the rule itself is not struck down.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • The application of Immigration Rule 277 to the appellants is declared unlawful.
  • Each appellant is entitled, absent other valid objection, to enter the UK forthwith as the spouse of a British citizen.