ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

British citizenship does not automatically prevent the removal of a parent under Article 8. It is an important factor, but not decisive. The decision-maker must conduct a careful, fact-sensitive proportionality assessment, including whether family members can reasonably be expected to follow the person removed. The effect on the family unit, particularly children, remains central. The precariousness of a parent's immigration status may be relevant when assessing the consequences for the other parent and the children. Appellate courts should approach factual findings cautiously. A weak conclusion about one possible care arrangement does not necessarily invalidate the determination where an alternative arrangement was independently considered and supports the conclusion that removal is proportionate.

The appellant, a Tanzanian citizen, challenged the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's second-stage reconsideration, promulgated on 5 August 2008. The Tribunal refused her appeal against removal after considering the Article 8 rights of her two British children and their father, who remained in the United Kingdom and suffered from HIV and alcohol-related difficulties.

The Tribunal considered both possible arrangements: the children remaining with their father in the United Kingdom or accompanying their mother to Tanzania, with continued contact through visits. The appeal challenged the proposition that the children's British citizenship was decisive and argued that several factual conclusions lacked a rational basis. The central issue was whether removal was disproportionate in light of the family circumstances and whether the children could reasonably be expected to follow their mother.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Moses held that the children's British citizenship was important but did not operate as a trump card under Article 8. The jurisprudence required a careful evaluation of the particular facts rather than a hard-edged rule. This approach was consistent with Beoku-Becks v SSHD [2008] 1 AC 115, EB (Kosovo) v SSHD [2008] 3 WLR 178, VW (Uganda) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 5 and N v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 414.

1. The Tribunal was entitled to assess whether it was reasonable to expect the children, as British citizens who had grown up in the United Kingdom, to accompany their mother to Tanzania. Citizenship weighed heavily, but did not determine the proportionality assessment.
2. The Tribunal's conclusion that the children could remain with their father was susceptible to criticism and had a very slim rational basis. Its speculation about boarding-school arrangements and Muslim children was also fanciful and unwise. That error did not invalidate the determination because the Tribunal had separately and properly considered the alternative of the children living with their mother in Tanzania.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the father's health did not permanently prevent visits to Tanzania. The financial objection had been raised only at the end of the hearing, and the evidence did not preclude the conclusion that visits were reasonably possible.
4. The fact that the parents formed their relationship and had children knowing that the appellant's immigration status was precarious was a relevant factor in assessing the effect of removal on the family. The Tribunal had considered the children, the parents and the family unit as a whole and was entitled to conclude that removal was not disproportionate.

Holman J agreed with the dismissal. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's reconsideration decision.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: on second-stage reconsideration, promulgated on 5 August 2008, refused the appeal against refusal of leave to remain and removal directions, having considered the Article 8 rights of the family.