MD Ruhul Amin, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an application supplies no evidence capable of establishing a viable Article 8 claim outside the Immigration Rules, the Secretary of State need not give detailed reasons for rejecting exceptional circumstances. A statement that the matter has been considered and that no such circumstances arise may suffice.

A child’s best interests must be a primary consideration under Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, but they are not determinative. Detailed consideration is required where the material discloses an arguable case needing it. It is not required where the evidence could not rationally justify leave outside the Rules.

Three Bangladeshi family members sought judicial review of refusals of leave to remain. The first and second applicants had overstayed after their leave expired in 2009. Their child, born in the United Kingdom, was also a Bangladeshi national.

The proceedings were transferred to the Administrative Court because they challenged the validity of the Immigration Rules. Ouseley J dismissed that challenge in [2014] EWHC 2322 (Admin), and the remaining grounds returned to the Upper Tribunal. The applicants contended that the refusal had failed properly to consider the child’s best interests and their Article 8 private and family life.

1. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The refusal was neither irrational nor affected by an arguable error of law. On the evidence before the Secretary of State, refusal was inevitable.

2. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, informed by article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, requires a child’s best interests to be a primary consideration. They are not, however, a trump card. The respondent had to consider them, but was not required to use particular words or provide detailed reasons where the material showed no feature outside the ordinary operation of the Rules.

3. The authorities, including Nagre [2013] EWHC 720, supported a two-stage approach. The decision-maker considers the applicable Immigration Rules and then considers Article 8 outside them only where there is an arguable case capable of succeeding. A bare conclusion that exceptional circumstances are absent can be sufficient where the evidence could not support leave outside the Rules.

4. The applicants had provided no persuasive evidence that the child could not return to Bangladesh with both parents. The family would remain together, and the local-authority assessment identified no parenting concern. The tribunal distinguished Bosomo [2014] UKUT 492, where substantial material required fuller engagement.

5. Permission to appeal was refused under rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, subject to summary assessment.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The remaining judicial-review grounds were dismissed in [2015] UKUT 135 (IAC).
• High Court (Administrative Court): Ouseley J dismissed the challenge to the validity of the Immigration Rules in [2014] EWHC 2322 (Admin) and returned the remaining grounds to the Upper Tribunal.
• First-tier Tribunal: An earlier appeal against refusal of leave was dismissed in 2010. The judgment records that permission to appeal was later refused, but gives no citation.