Sayaniya v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For an adult dependent relative seeking indefinite leave to enter under rule 317(i)(f), the requirements that the applicant live alone, be mainly financially dependent on relatives in the United Kingdom, and be living in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances must all be satisfied. The threshold is stringent. Article 8 does not require an unrestricted right of entry for adult dependent family members, and rule 317(i)(f) is compatible with the Strasbourg jurisprudence. On judicial review or appeal, the court must not substitute its assessment of the facts for that of the adjudicator.

The applicant challenged the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal against an adjudicator’s dismissal of her appeal from the refusal of indefinite leave to enter under rule 317(i)(f) of the Immigration Rules. The adjudicator accepted that she lived alone, was mainly financially dependent on relatives in the United Kingdom, and faced compassionate circumstances, but found that the circumstances were not the most exceptional. Stanley Burnton J dismissed her application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant sought permission to appeal, arguing that the adjudicator had mishandled the evidence and that rule 317(i)(f) was incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Application refused. The adjudicator was entitled to assess the sponsor’s credibility and to conclude that the stringent requirements of rule 317(i)(f) were not met.
2. The adjudicator’s failure expressly to mention every item of evidence did not show that relevant evidence had been ignored. In the absence of medical evidence, the adjudicator was entitled to conclude that evidence that the applicant was frightened, had lost weight and cried frequently did not establish the most exceptional compassionate circumstances.
3. The reviewing judge had not improperly substituted his own view for that of the adjudicator. The adjudicator had determined the statutory criteria, and was entitled to reach the conclusion that they were unmet.
4. Rule 317(i)(f) was not incompatible with article 8. The Strasbourg principles considered in ex parte Mahmood [2001] 1 WLR 840, although developed in relation to DP3/96, applied equally to rule 317(i)(f). An adult dependent relative has no unrestricted entitlement to join a family member in the United Kingdom.
5. The applicant’s status as a voucher-holding British Overseas Citizen did not alter the interpretation or application of the rule. Rule 297(i)(e) of HC 395 was not a useful analogy, and Offen [2001] 1 WLR 253 concerned materially different legislation and a different context.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal refused. Detailed assessment of the applicant’s costs.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Stanley Burnton J dismissed the application for judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Refused permission to appeal against the adjudicator’s dismissal of the immigration appeal.
• Adjudicator: Dismissed the appeal against refusal of indefinite leave to enter under rule 317(i)(f) of the Immigration Rules.