Jeunesse v the Netherlands
(Application N o. 12738/10), the G rand C hamber stated that the Applicant’s residence in the Netherlands during a 17 year period - which, on t he facts of her case, could not be described as anything other than precarious - was unlawful: see [102]. She was an alien whose presence was “tolerated” by the host state: see [103]. The precarious nature of her presence emerges clearly in the succeeding passage:
“
C
onfronting the authorities of the host country with family life as a fait accompli does not entail that those authorities are, as a result, under an obligation … to allow the applicant to settle in the country.
- ntroduction
- The Issues
- Statutory Framework
- consequence
- (Sections 117A – 117D)
- YM (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- three
- The Second Issue
- Re P
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal
- R (Evans) v Attorney General
- Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- must
- only
- in all cases
- other than
- relevant
- immaterial
- an instruction
- Wednesbury
- Cart
- Evans
- he Third Issue
- establishment
- formation
- continuation and extension
- The Fourth Issue
- AM (S117B) Malawi
- (Returnees – criminal and non-criminal) DRC
- Section 117B(5):
- Jeunesse v the Netherlands
- The court has previously held that, in general, persons in that situation have no entitlement to expect that a right of residence will be conferred upon them
- B v Sweden
- precarious
- Omnibus Conclusion and Decision
- Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
- introduc
- The Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014