SA (Somalia) v Entrey Clearance Officer

Permission to appeal in an immigration case should be granted where the proposed appeal raises arguable questions about the interaction between the Immigration Rules and a family reunion policy, and about the proper interpretation of that policy. An immigration decision-maker must engage with material expert evidence relevant to the assessment of family life. In an Article 8 assessment, the decision’s effect on the family as a whole must be considered, including the position of other relevant family members.

Three minor siblings sought entry clearance to the United Kingdom as dependent relatives under paragraph 297 of HC 395. Their sponsor, who had refugee status in the United Kingdom, had cared for them after their father’s death and their mother’s disappearance. An immigration judge made an adverse determination. The applicants renewed their application for permission to appeal, arguing that the judge had inadequately addressed the family reunion policy, paragraph 352D of the Immigration Rules, Article 8, and expert evidence about family life in Somalia. The central issues concerned the arguability of those grounds and whether the family’s circumstances had been properly assessed.

1. Permission granted. The proposed appeal raised arguable issues concerning paragraph 297 of HC 395, paragraph 352D of the Immigration Rules, the relationship between the Rules and the family reunion policy, and the proper interpretation of paragraph 16.2 of that policy, including whether the siblings could be treated as de facto adopted children.
2. The immigration judge had recorded Dr Lulling’s report but made no reference to its substance. The expert evidence was potentially important in explaining family life in Somalia and therefore furnished an arguable ground requiring appellate consideration.
3. For the purposes of Article 8, Beoku-Betts v SSHD [2008] UKHL 39 made clear that the impact of an immigration decision on the whole family had to be considered, rather than its indirect effect on the particular applicant alone. The immigration judge had made no findings about the sponsor’s husband, who appeared to be a member of the wider family.
4. The issues were similar to those in MK (Somalia) UKAIT 00020. It was desirable, if possible, for the same court to hear both appeals together or consecutively. The office was invited to consider suitable arrangements.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On a renewed application, permission to appeal was granted against the adverse determination of Immigration Judge Mrs Dean dated 12 December 2007.