Suresh Rangana Wijerathne v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A serious medical condition affecting a British-citizen spouse does not, without sufficient evidence of its practical consequences, establish insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing abroad. The assessment must consider the medical evidence as a whole, the person’s stability and treatment needs, the support available, and the facilities in the proposed country of return. Less extensive healthcare facilities do not constitute an insurmountable obstacle where the evidence does not show a need for inpatient or constant care, or a likely serious relapse if the family relocates.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of leave to remain as the spouse of a British citizen. He contended that his wife’s schizophrenia, her asserted need for his care, and the comparatively limited mental-health facilities in Sri Lanka created insurmountable obstacles to their family life continuing there.

Permission had been granted on the arguable ground that the Secretary of State had failed to consider relevant and potentially material matters. The central issue was whether the medical evidence and the likely consequences of relocation established insurmountable obstacles.

1. The judicial-review application was refused. The Secretary of State had considered the medical material and had assessed its effect on the applicant’s wife in the round.
2. Schizophrenia was accepted to be a serious condition, but its existence did not itself establish an insurmountable obstacle. The relevant question was whether the consequences of the condition, taken cumulatively, would prevent family life continuing in Sri Lanka.
3. The evidence showed that, after an initial period of intensive intervention, the wife was sufficiently stable to receive outpatient treatment and three-monthly reviews. It did not show that she required full-time or 24-hour care, that the applicant’s employment in Sri Lanka would cause a serious relapse, or that she had required inpatient treatment.
4. The Secretary of State could reasonably infer from the absence of updated medical evidence that there had been no deterioration since the medical report of 17 May 2013. Although mental-health facilities in Sri Lanka were less extensive and inpatient units limited, the evidence did not show that those limitations would make relocation unworkable. The applicant and his wife would continue to have mutual and family support.
5. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s reasonable costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on an unargued NHS-treatment ground was refused.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of leave to remain was refused. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also refused.