Private life
72. Mr Lewis sought to augment his submissions by arguing that in the context of entry clearance applications the Article 8(1) rights to which the appellant is entitled are not confined to family life but also encompass private life. For him this is an important factor because Strasbourg jurisprudence has recognised the right to nationality as an aspect of a person’s private life: see e.g. R (Johnson) v SSHD [2016] 3 WLR 1267 and Genovese v Malta (2014) 58 EHRR 25. He acknowledged that at first sight this limb of his argument was contrary to Court of Appeal authority ( Abbas v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1393), but submitted that the appellant’s case could be distinguished from Abbas in several respects. 73. Whilst we agree with Mr Lewis that Abbas case addresses a significantly different factual scenario (a proposed visit to an uncle) and that it does not address the situation of a British citizen child or indeed any child, we are unable to accept that in this decision the Court of Appeal envisaged any exceptions to its broadly expressed statement at the level of “principle” that the right to respect for private life was not engaged in entry clearance cases. At [18] the Lord Chief Justice stated that: “[t] o accept that the private life aspect of article 8 could require a Contracting State to allow an alien to enter its territory would mark a step change in the reach of article 8 in the immigration context. As a matter of principle it would be wrong to do so.”
74. We consider that this decision binds us not to have regard to the appellant’s right to respect for private life in the context of an entry clearance application. 75. At the same time, we do not view this as precluding us from having regard to the relevance of nationality, since, as we have seen, that is clearly one of the factors that decision-makers must take into account when considering the proportionality of any interference with the right to respect for family life. Indeed, it would be wholly artificial and simply wrong to hollow out, from the material scope of a person’s family life, considerations going to factors such as their nationality and social identity.
- DECISION AND REASONS
- Submissions at the hearing
- General
- Nationality
- 28. At the same time it is also clear that, by virtue of their minority, children are not in a position to exercise some of the rights and benefits ordinarily associated with nationality for so long as they are children. This is a feature highlighted by a leading expert on children and nationality, Jacqueline Bhaba 2 , in her article on “The importance of nationality for children”, Institute on Statelessness and Exclusion, 2017:
- British citizenship and British citizen children
- British citizenship and Union citizenship
- Dual or multiple nationality
- 39. But there can also be disadvantages of having more than one nationality. As a dual citizen, a person is bound by the laws of both countries. Dual citizens may be legally obligated to fulfil military obligations in one or both of the countries of nationality. In some countries there are employment security clearance hurdles for persons who have another nationality. There is also the potential for double taxation. Further, there is the potential difficulty for persons seeking to rely on the opportunity to exercise their rights and benefits as a national of one country, that they have available a separate set of rights and benefits flowing from their other nationality. This last feature is one we will have to consider further in the context of this appeal.
- Specific legal framework
- “Exceptional circumstances
- Section 55
- Statutory provisions and Section 117B(6)
- The Immigration Rules
- Policy
- Case law
- disruption
- Private life
- The appellant’s case
- The Immigration Rules: Appendices FM and FM-SE
- Article 8
- Public interest considerations
- The position of the sponsor
- The option of the children joining the sponsor in the UK on their own
- The option of the sponsor returning to Sri Lanka
- status quo ante
- or the appellant and children being able to live in the UK
- The best interests of the children
- The appellant’s position under the Rules
- Zambrano
- [2012] 1 CMLR 45
