IA & Ors v Secretary of the Home Department

For adult siblings, family life under article 8(1) requires additional elements of dependence involving more than normal emotional ties. Real, committed or effective support is relevant, but it is not the test itself and may be insufficient if the dependence is minor or insignificant. The assessment remains fact-sensitive and does not require exclusive or complete dependence.

Where family life is established with a person within the Convention jurisdiction, it is unitary, but proportionality primarily concerns that person’s rights. Children’s best interests are important but are not paramount or a trump card. Considerable weight must be given to immigration policies expressed in the Immigration Rules. Entry clearance outside the Rules requires very exceptional or compelling circumstances.

A Palestinian family of six living in Gaza applied for entry clearance to join the father’s younger brother, a British citizen resident in the UK. It was common ground that they could not meet the Immigration Rules. The First-tier Tribunal found article 8(1) family life between the sponsor and the family, but dismissed the appeals under article 8(2).

The Upper Tribunal upheld the family-life finding, set aside the proportionality assessment for error of law, and remade the decision in the family’s favour. The Secretary of State appealed, challenging the existence of family life, the treatment of the family members’ rights outside the jurisdiction, and the proportionality assessment.

1. Appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 3 and partly on ground 2. The Court of Appeal remade the decision and held that no article 8(1) family life existed between the sponsor, his brother, or the brother’s family in Gaza.
2. The applicable test was that stated in Kumari v The Netherlands and Beoku-Betts v SSHD: adult siblings must demonstrate additional elements of dependence involving more than normal emotional ties. The inquiry is individualised and fact-sensitive. Financial, physical and psychological dependence may be relevant, but complete or exclusive dependence is unnecessary.
3. The First-tier Tribunal applied the lower real, committed or effective support test and expressly treated it as lower than dependency. The Upper Tribunal correctly identified the need for an exacting test but wrongly upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion. Support may be evidence of dependency, but it is not conclusive.
4. Family life, if established with a person within the jurisdiction, is unitary. The proportionality exercise primarily focuses on the family life of the person within article 1 jurisdiction, while taking account of the shared family life with persons outside the UK. It does not create a positive obligation to admit every member of the wider family.
5. Had family life existed, refusal would nevertheless have been proportionate. The children’s best interests were important but not paramount. The Upper Tribunal gave excessive weight to the risks in Gaza and insufficient weight to immigration policies expressed in the Rules.
6. The Rules express the Secretary of State’s immigration policy and the public interest in effective immigration control. Courts and tribunals must attach considerable weight to that policy at a general level. They may displace it only in very exceptional or compelling circumstances, which were absent here.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2025] EWCA Civ 1516 : allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal on grounds 1 and 3 and in part on ground 2; remade the article 8(1) decision and held that, alternatively, refusal of entry clearance was proportionate.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — citation not stated in the judgment: upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s finding that family life existed, set aside its article 8(2) assessment for material errors of law, and remade the decision in the family’s favour.
• First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — citation not stated in the judgment: found family life under article 8(1), but dismissed the appeals, holding that refusal of entry clearance was proportionate.