MRS & Anor, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer

MRS & Anor, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer

The respondent's biometric discretion policy is unlawful as it misdirects decision-makers by requiring 'extraordinary' circumstances, fails to strike a fair balance under Article 8 ECHR, and unlawfully fetters discretion. The refusal to defer biometrics interferes disproportionately with the applicants' right to respect for family life given their compelling circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: MRS; Applicant: FS; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Biometric Data, Family Reunion, Article 8 ECHR, Policy Discretion, Proportionality, Best Interests of the Child
Immigration Human Rights Public Law Biometric Data Family Reunion Article 8 ECHR Policy Discretion Proportionality +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRS

Applicant

FS

Applicant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of respondent's biometric discretion policy under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether refusal to defer biometrics breaches right to respect for family life
  3. 3 Failure to consider relevant factors including best interests of a child

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's biometric discretion policy is unlawful as it misdirects decision-makers by requiring 'extraordinary' circumstances, fails to strike a fair balance under Article 8 ECHR, and unlawfully fetters discretion. The refusal to defer biometrics interferes disproportionately with the applicants' right to respect for family life given their compelling circumstances.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Decisions dated 28th March 2022 (and previous relevant decisions) quashed
  • Declaration that respondent's policy on biometric discretion is unlawful