NW (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For an adult child relying on Article 8 family life with parents, the claimant must show emotional ties that go beyond ordinary emotional ties. Where the tribunal has properly directed itself on that test and made a legitimate evaluative assessment of the facts, an appellate challenge will ordinarily disclose no arguable error of law. On a second appeal, the applicant must additionally show an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case. A disagreement with the tribunal’s factual evaluation, without more, will not satisfy that threshold.

The appellant sought leave to remain as an adult on the basis of dependency and family life with parents resident within the jurisdiction. The Upper Tribunal found that, although ties existed, they did not exceed the level required to establish family life for the purposes of Article 8. The appellant renewed an oral application for permission to bring a second appeal after permission had been refused on the papers by Sullivan LJ. The central questions were whether the Upper Tribunal had erred in law and whether the proposed appeal satisfied the second-appeal test.

1. Application refused. This was a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal. The applicable threshold was whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or whether there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. In an Article 8 claim based on family life between an adult child and parents, the claimant must establish more than normal emotional ties. The court referred to the recent restatement of that principle in Singh v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 530.
3. The Upper Tribunal had properly directed itself in law. It was entitled to find, on the facts, that the ties between the appellant and his parents were not of a kind capable of founding a claim to remain based on Article 8.
4. The tribunal’s decision turned essentially on an evaluative assessment of the facts, which it had performed in a straightforward and legitimate way. There was no real prospect of success even if the ordinary appeal test had applied. The stronger second-appeal threshold was therefore plainly not met.

The application was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal: A renewed oral application for permission to bring a second appeal was refused. The court accepted that the Upper Tribunal had properly directed itself and had made a lawful evaluative assessment.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber): The tribunal found that the appellant’s ties with his parents did not establish family life of the necessary kind.
• Permission stage: Sullivan LJ had refused permission on the papers.