UI2022002013 & Ors [2023] UKAITUR UI2022002013 (17 June 2023)

UI2022002013 & Ors [2023] UKAITUR UI2022002013 (17 June 2023)

The claimants failed to establish that refusal of entry clearance would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for them or the sponsor. They did not meet the requirements of paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules, and there was no evidence of exceptional circumstances. The public interest in effective immigration control outweighs the interference with family life. The appeals are dismissed.

Citation
[2023] UKAITUR UI2022002013
Parties
Appellant: Entry Clearance Officer; First Respondent: Salomey Banka Amakye; Second Respondent: Elizabeth Ohenewaah Amakye; Third Respondent: Moses Kwame Amakye
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Upper Tribunal Re Making of Decision After Error of Law Found in First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Dependent Children, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Immigration Rules Paragraph 297, Best Interests of the Child
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Dependent Children Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Immigration Rules Paragraph 297 Best Interests of the Child

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

Entry Clearance Officer

Appellant

Salomey Banka Amakye

First Respondent

Elizabeth Ohenewaah Amakye

Second Respondent

Moses Kwame Amakye

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Upper Tribunal Re Making of Decision After Error of Law Found in First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of entry clearance to dependent children is disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether claimants meet requirements of Immigration Rules paragraph 297
  3. 3 Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying entry clearance outside the Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish that refusal of entry clearance would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for them or the sponsor. They did not meet the requirements of paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules, and there was no evidence of exceptional circumstances. The public interest in effective immigration control outweighs the interference with family life. The appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of the First-tier Tribunal set aside
  • Appeals of all three claimants against the Entry Clearance Officer's decisions are dismissed