Senthuran v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Whether family life exists between adult siblings for the purposes of Article 8 is a fact-sensitive question. Adult status and financial independence do not create a categorical exclusion. The tribunal must identify the nature of the asserted family life and explain why the relationship does or does not attract protection.

A tribunal must give adequate reasons and incorporate material facts into its reasoning. Merely reciting those facts in the procedural history is insufficient. When assessing family life and proportionality, it must address circumstances capable of affecting either question, including the history of cohabitation, the age at which it began and material delay by the immigration authorities.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan Tamil, entered the United Kingdom aged 17 and lived continuously with one or more siblings. After a delay exceeding four years, the Secretary of State refused his asylum claim. An Immigration Adjudicator dismissed the asylum appeal but allowed the appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. It found that the appellant had not established protected family life with his adult relatives and that removal would in any event be proportionate. The appellant appealed against that determination. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had given adequate reasons and had considered the material facts when addressing family life and proportionality.

1. Appeal allowed. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s determination was set aside and the Secretary of State’s appeal was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal. Wall LJ delivered the judgment of the court.

2. The existence of family life between adult siblings under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a question of fact. Advic v United Kingdom was not authority for a rule that Article 8 can never apply to adult siblings who live together. Adjudicators and the Tribunal must identify the nature of the asserted family life and give a short, clear explanation of why Article 8 is or is not engaged.

3. The Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons. Litigants are entitled to understand why they have won or lost, particularly in immigration proceedings where the consequences are profound. There is a substantial qualitative difference between mentioning facts as part of the history and incorporating them into the reasoning process.

4. The Tribunal had not brought manifestly relevant matters into its assessment. The appellant had arrived aged 17 and had lived continuously with siblings. More than four years had then elapsed before the Secretary of State refused his claim. Those circumstances were relevant both to whether family life existed and to whether removal would constitute a proportionate interference.

5. The Tribunal also needed to address material findings made by the Adjudicator before reversing the decision. Those included findings that the appellant was credible, had been tortured, had no family in Sri Lanka, lived in a close family unit in the United Kingdom and had been affected by the prolonged delay.

6. The court did not determine the merits of the Article 8 appeal. All issues would remain at large on rehearing, and nothing in the judgment indicated what the eventual outcome should be.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant’s appeal was allowed. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s determination was set aside and the Secretary of State’s appeal was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal: [2004] EWCA Civ 950.

2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, holding that protected family life had not been established and that removal would in any event be proportionate.

3. Immigration Adjudicator: The Adjudicator dismissed the asylum appeal but declined to uphold the Secretary of State’s certificate and allowed the appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.