Bailey, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The “no ties” requirement in paragraph 276ADE(vi) of the Immigration Rules requires a rounded assessment of all relevant circumstances. Family or social connections are not essential, and the absence of family or friends does not determine the issue. Relevant factors include residence in the country of return, age at departure, exposure to its culture, language, and the nature of any relationships there. Where the Rules have already addressed the relevant Article 8 factors, a separate assessment outside the Rules need not repeat the same balancing exercise. Social relationships with relatives will not ordinarily constitute family life or make removal disproportionate where they involve no dependency and can be maintained through communication and visits.

The claimant, a Ugandan national, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision refusing further leave to remain on Article 8 family and private life grounds. Her principal argument was that she satisfied paragraph 276ADE(vi) because, although she had lived in the United Kingdom for less than 20 years, she had no ties with Uganda. She also argued that insufficient weight had been given to relationships with members of her deceased husband’s family. The court considered the proper approach to the “no ties” requirement and to Article 8 outside the Rules.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The decision-maker was entitled to conclude that the claimant did not satisfy paragraph 276ADE(vi) of the Immigration Rules.

2. The assessment of whether an applicant has “no ties” with the country of return must be rounded and fact-sensitive. It is not confined to social, cultural and family circumstances. Relevant considerations included the length of residence in the country of return, the age at which the person left, exposure to its cultural norms, language, and the extent and quality of family and friendships there. No single factor is decisive.

3. Even assuming that the claimant had no family or friends in Uganda, the decision-maker could take account of her having spent most of her formative years there, having arrived in the United Kingdom in her twenties, having lived in the United Kingdom for about eight years, having been exposed to Ugandan cultural norms and speaking its language. The case was materially different from Ogundimu (Article 8-new rules - Nigeria) [2013] UKUT 60 and Green (Article 8-new rules) [2013] UKUT 254, which concerned people who had arrived as very young children and had no ties with their countries of origin.

4. The Article 8 assessment under the Rules had substantially undertaken the relevant balancing exercise. A further assessment outside the Rules was not required to repeat it. The decision-maker had nevertheless considered Article 8 outside the Rules in detail.

5. The claimant’s relationships with her deceased husband’s mother and sister-in-law involved social contact, correspondence, telephone calls and occasional visits, rather than dependency. They did not readily amount to family life and were insufficient to make removal disproportionate. The relationships could be maintained from Uganda using modern communications.

6. The claimant was ordered to pay £1,500 for the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement of service and detailed grounds, summarily assessed. No order was made for the costs of the hearing.

The judgment records that the claimant had previously appealed an earlier refusal of leave to the First-tier Tribunal, which dismissed that appeal on 25 July 2012. The present proceedings challenged a later Secretary of State decision dated 27 September 2013.