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

British citizenship of the children is an important factor in Article 8 assessment but is not determinative; instead courts must carry out a careful proportionality evaluation of all material facts, including whether it is reasonable to expect family members to follow the removed person, and appellate review of tribunal fact-finding is confined to rationality and jurisdictional error.

The appellant, a Tanzanian national who had long resisted removal, appealed the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's reconsideration decision refusing leave to remain and ordering removal. The only issue before the tribunal and this court was whether returning the appellant would breach Article 8 rights of her two British-born children. The tribunal concluded removal was proportionate, finding the children could reasonably follow their mother to Tanzania or could remain with their father. The Court of Appeal considered whether the children's British citizenship made their Article 8 rights dispositive and reviewed the tribunal's factual findings on parental care, health and the ability to maintain contact.

1. Disposition: The appeals are dismissed and the tribunal's reconsideration decision is upheld (see [2009] EWCA Civ 691, paras 1, 33).
2. Citizenship is not dispositive: The court held that the British citizenship of children is a weighty but not conclusive factor in the Article 8 proportionality balance; there is no hard-edged rule that citizenship alone prevents removal (paras 16–23). The court relied on the evaluative approach in authority that requires a careful case-specific proportionality assessment rather than bright-line rules (paras 18–21).
3. Proportionality inquiry: The proper inquiry is whether it is reasonable to expect those entitled to remain (spouse/children) to follow the removed person, and whether the hardship of removal goes sufficiently beyond the baseline to render removal disproportionate; familiarity with the receiving state and severity of interference are relevant factors (paras 18–21, 26–27).
4. Factual findings and appellate standard: The court reviewed the tribunal's findings on whether the children could remain with their father, the father's health and alcoholism, and the viability of the father visiting Tanzania. Although some factual conclusions (particularly the possibility of the children remaining with their father) were open to criticism, the court concluded they were not irrational or perverse such as to vitiate the decision (paras 23–32).
5. Consequent order: Having applied the correct legal approach and found no error of law or irrationality in the tribunal's balancing exercise, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal (paras 33–35).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal heard and dismissed; considered the AIT reconsideration decision and affirmed it ([2009] EWCA Civ 691).
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Second-stage reconsideration decision refusing leave to remain and ordering removal (AIT No. IA/01284/2008).