DL (DRC) & the Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria v The Entry Clearance Officer, Karachi

Paragraphs 352A and 352D of the Immigration Rules provide family reunion routes only where the sponsor is a currently recognised refugee. A person who acquires the nationality of the host state and enjoys its protection ceases to be a refugee under Article 1C(3) of the Refugee Convention. In the absence of an applicable domestic cessation procedure, that loss of status operates automatically. Applicants must then rely on the ordinary family-member rules, including their maintenance and accommodation requirements. Part 9 refusal grounds apply to Part 11 applications. Article 8 must be reconsidered on the correct immigration-rule premise. A tribunal may conclude that family life can resume in a third country where the evidence supports that conclusion.

These conjoined appeals concerned family members seeking entry to join sponsors who had been recognised as refugees but later acquired British citizenship. In DL’s case, the AIT treated paragraph 352D as applicable and allowed the appeal, despite his conviction in South Africa. In ZN’s case, the AIT applied the ordinary family-member rules, dismissed the appeals, and upheld that decision on reconsideration. The central issues were whether the sponsors remained refugees, whether paragraphs 352A and 352D applied after naturalisation, whether the general refusal grounds applied, and whether Article 8 required different outcomes.

1. Disposition. The ECO’s appeal in 0831 was allowed and the case was remitted to the AIT for reconsideration of the Article 8 claim. The applicants’ appeal in 0687 was dismissed.
2. Family reunion rules. Paragraphs 352A and 352D of the Immigration Rules apply only where the sponsor is currently a recognised refugee. The wording of paragraph 352A refers to the spouse of a refugee, while the perfect tense in paragraph 352D denotes a continuing state of affairs. The rules also require authoritative recognition of the sponsor’s refugee status, not merely an assertion of it.
3. Refugee status. A recognised refugee who acquires the citizenship of the host state, and enjoys its protection, loses refugee status under Article 1C(3) of the Refugee Convention. States may prescribe procedures governing cessation, but where no applicable domestic procedure exists, cessation operates automatically. The Directives relied on by the applicants had not taken effect, or been implemented domestically, when the sponsors acquired citizenship. The applicants were therefore confined to paragraphs 281 and 297, including their maintenance and accommodation requirements.
4. Construction of the Rules. The clear language of the Rules could not be displaced by family-reunion policy considerations. The court followed the ordinary-language approach restated in MB (Somalia) [2008] EWCA Civ 102 and rejected the purposive approach associated with Arman Ali [2000] INLR 89.
5. Part 9 refusal grounds. Although the issue was technically moot, the court expressed a concluded view that paragraph 320(18) applies to applications under Part 11. The opening words of paragraph 320 add grounds to those in Parts 2 to 8; they do not restrict paragraph 320 to applications under those Parts.
6. Article 8. In DL’s case the Article 8 assessment had proceeded on the false premise that paragraph 352D applied. The accommodation and maintenance requirements were part of the Secretary of State’s policy and had to be considered. The case therefore required remittal. In ZN’s case, the tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence of residence, schooling and family connections in Pakistan, that family life could resume there. It had assessed the family unit as a whole, and neither the Article 8 framework nor Beoku-Betts [2008] UKHL 39 required a different result. Rix and Wilson LJJ agreed with Laws LJ.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2008] EWCA Civ 1420, the ECO’s appeal in 0831 was allowed and remitted to the AIT for reconsideration of Article 8. The applicants’ appeal in 0687 was dismissed.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — In 0831, Immigration Judge Goldfarb allowed the appeal; on reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Mather found an error of law but again allowed the appeal. In 0687, Immigration Judge Wiseman dismissed the appeals and Senior Immigration Judge Eshun upheld that decision on reconsideration.