In the recent case of MT and ET (child’s best interests; extempore pilot) Nigeria [2018] UKUT 88 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal gave very good guidance as to when it is reasonable to expect a child to leave the UK.
The principal question to be decided by Upper Tribunal was how much weight to give to parent’s poor immigration history when looking at the balancing exercise between a child’s best interests and the public interest in deciding whether it is reasonable to expect a child to leave the UK.
This is apparently not in line with recently published home office guidance which implies that, where a parent has a poor immigration history, the child’s best interests will outweigh the public interest in exceptional circumstances only (for example when the child suffers from a “serious medical condition”).
Having established the best interests of the child, the Upper Tribunal had to see whether there were “powerful reasons” why ET should nonetheless leave the UK. Mr Justice Lane found that there were none.
Below is an extract from para 34 of the Judgement:
Of course, the public interest lies in removing a person, such as MT, who has abused the immigration laws of the United Kingdom… MT had, at some stage, received a community order for using a false document to obtain employment. But, given the strength of ET’s case, MT’s conduct in our view comes nowhere close to requiring the respondent to succeed… her immigration history is not so bad as to constitute the kind of “powerful” reason that would render reasonable the removal of ET to Nigeria. [34]
Overall a good decision for applicants whose parents do not have an exemplary immigration history.
