Cenir v Entry Clearance Officer

Whether a settled parent has had sole responsibility for a child’s upbringing under paragraph 297(i)(e) of the Immigration Rules is a fact-sensitive question determined from the total pattern of circumstances. The central inquiry is whether the child’s upbringing, particularly important decisions, has occurred under that parent’s direction or control.

Physical absence and lack of hands-on, day-to-day care are relevant but not conclusive. Financial support and affectionate contact are likewise relevant but do not by themselves establish sole responsibility. The decision-maker may consider the duration of separation, frequency of contact, degree of parental involvement and responsibility assumed by relatives caring for the child.

The appellant sought indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as the child of his mother, who was settled there. Under paragraph 297(i)(e) of the Immigration Rules, he had to establish that his mother had exercised sole responsibility for his upbringing.

The mother had left the Philippines when the appellant was four years old. During approximately 14 years of separation, he lived with his grandparents and brothers. She regularly provided financial support and maintained contact with the family. The special adjudicator nevertheless found that her limited involvement in the appellant’s upbringing, together with the family’s care of him, did not amount to sole responsibility. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal declined to reverse that determination.

The central issues were whether the adjudicator had wrongly treated the mother’s absence from day-to-day care and control as decisive, and whether he had failed adequately to consider evidence of her financial contributions and communications with the family.

1. Appeal dismissed. Buxton LJ held that the special adjudicator had applied the correct approach to sole responsibility under paragraph 297(i)(e) of the Immigration Rules. Mance and Aldous LJJ agreed.

2. The question was factual and depended upon the total pattern of circumstances. The general guidance was to examine whether acts concerning the child’s upbringing had occurred under the direction of the settled parent. Direction and control over important decisions were central considerations, although no exhaustive list of relevant matters was appropriate.

3. The adjudicator had not treated the mother’s physical absence or lack of hands-on, day-to-day care as conclusive. Read as a whole, his determination addressed her degree of decision-making, overall control and involvement in both the appellant’s daily life and general upbringing. He was entitled to consider the duration of separation, the frequency of contact and the close, long-standing involvement of the grandparents and other relatives.

4. The mother’s substantial financial support, devotion and regular communications were relevant but did not establish sole responsibility. The remittance notes and other exchanges did not demonstrate that she played a determinative role in the appellant’s upbringing. They were consistent with affectionate family communications and often left considerable discretion to the relatives caring for him.

5. An adjudicator need not recite every item of evidence considered. The determination showed that the relevant communications and financial evidence had been taken into account. The conclusion was one of fact and judgment which was open on the evidence and disclosed no error of law. There was consequently no basis for intervention by either the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or the Court of Appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal to disturb the special adjudicator’s determination.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Declined to reverse the special adjudicator’s determination dated 2 August 2002.
3. Special adjudicator: Found that the settled mother had not exercised sole responsibility for the appellant’s upbringing under paragraph 297(i)(e) of the Immigration Rules.