Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The House of Lords held that an appeal under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (now sections 82 and 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002) requires the adjudicator or tribunal to consider whether the proposed removal would disproportionately interfere with the family life of the family unit as a whole, not merely the personal effect on the appellant. The court adopted a wider construction of section 65 consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Strasbourg jurisprudence on article 8 ECHR and reinstated the adjudicator's decision granting leave to remain. The narrower approach adopted by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and endorsed by the Court of Appeal was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory purpose of "one‑stop" appeals and liable to produce impractical and artificial results.

The appellant, a Sierra Leonean who arrived in the United Kingdom as a student and subsequently overstayed, appealed the Secretary of State's refusal to grant leave to remain on article 8 grounds under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The adjudicator allowed the human rights appeal on article 8, finding close interdependence between the appellant and his family in the United Kingdom. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and then the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 65 required consideration only of the effect of removal on the appellant personally rather than the family unit as a whole.

The House of Lords was asked to determine whether, on an appeal under section 65 (now sections 82 and 84 of the 2002 Act), the appellate authorities should take account of the effect of removal upon all members who share the appellant's family life or only its effect upon the appellant himself. The court examined the statutory wording, the purpose of the "one‑stop" appeal regime, domestic authorities (including Kehinde and R (AC) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal), and Strasbourg case law (including Sezen and Mokrani) on article 8.

The issues for decision were:

• Whether section 65 confines the appellate inquiry to the appellant's own Convention rights;
• Whether the impact of removal on other family members may be taken into account only insofar as it affects the appellant indirectly; and
• Whether a wider construction permitting consideration of the family unit as a whole is consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Strasbourg jurisprudence.

The House concluded that the wider construction is correct: where family members form a single family life, the appellate authorities must assess proportionality by reference to the effect on the family unit, and if the removal would be disproportionate to that unit, each affected member is a victim for article 8 purposes. Applying that approach, the Lords allowed the appeal, set aside the IAT and Court of Appeal decisions and reinstated the adjudicator's article 8 determination in the appellant's favour. The court noted that although the issue will infrequently affect outcomes it is important to give a proper statutory and Convention-compatible construction to section 65.

Appeal allowed. The House held that an appeal under section 65 of the 1999 Act (now sections 82 and 84 of the 2002 Act) permits the adjudicator or tribunal to assess whether removal would disproportionately interfere with the family life of the family unit as a whole; the narrower construction limiting consideration to the appellant's personal rights was rejected. The adjudicator's decision in favour of the appellant was reinstated.

Adjudicator (30 January 2003): asylum dismissed but article 8 appeal allowed; Immigration Appeal Tribunal (5 September 2003): allowed Secretary of State's appeal (narrow approach); Court of Appeal (6 June 2005) [2005] EWCA Civ 828: dismissed appellant's appeal; House of Lords (25 June 2008) [2008] UKHL 39: appeal allowed and adjudicator's decision reinstated.