LA (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When assessing whether removal is proportionate under Article 8, the decision-maker should give a brief but intelligible account of the factors on both sides. An omission may nevertheless be immaterial where, even after those factors are taken into account, no different conclusion could realistically be reached. Home Office delay may strengthen family or private life over time, but is not itself a ground against removal. A weak connection with the country of nationality requires careful consideration of the removal destination, but does not alone make removal disproportionate.

The appellant, a Ugandan national, entered the United Kingdom in 2000 and applied in 2001 to extend her student leave. A refusal was not issued until 2007. She relied on her health, family relationships in the United Kingdom, financial support from her brother, and responsibility for her young daughter.

Immigration Judge Ross dismissed her appeal, finding removal proportionate under Article 8. On reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Moulden found no error of law. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the tribunal’s treatment of the relevant proportionality factors contained a material error of law.

Application refused. Lord Justice Sedley held:

1. In assessing the proportionality of removal under Article 8, an immigration judge should provide a roundup, however brief, of the factors operating in each direction. The reasoning should show how and why the conclusion was reached. Merely setting out relevant matters earlier in the determination may not suffice.
2. The tribunal’s failure expressly to include potentially influential matters in its proportionality summary was arguably an error. It was not, however, a material error of law. The question was whether, had the matters been expressly considered, the immigration judge could realistically have reached the opposite conclusion. On the facts, the answer was no.
3. Home Office delay is not itself a ground for non-removal. With the passage of time, it may enhance family and private life in the United Kingdom to a point at which, together with other factors, removal becomes disproportionate. That point had not been reached here.
4. The appellant had no entitlement to remain. Her daughter was sufficiently young to travel and resettle with her, and continuing financial support from the appellant’s brother could be expected. Her medical condition, reduced access to medical care in Uganda, and loss of immediate family support did not alter the proportionality assessment.
5. Uganda was largely foreign to the appellant, while Kenya was more nearly her true home and no longer contained her immediate family. The Home Office was required to give careful attention to the destination for removal. That consideration did not, alone or cumulatively, make removal disproportionate, even if further travel were needed for resettlement.

Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sedley LJ refused permission to appeal. Stanley Burnton LJ had also considered the matter on the papers and declined permission.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Ross dismissed the appeal against refusal of leave. On reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Moulden held that the determination contained no error of law.