The Immigration Rules
49. In relation to in-country applications , there are immigration rules that provide eligibility to applicants having a genuine and subsisting relationship with a British citizen child. These broadly complement the protection against removal afforded by s.117B(6) in the context of decisions by courts and tribunals. Paragraph EX.1, which concerns exceptions to certain eligibility requirements for leave to remain as a partner or parent, is predicated, in the same way as is s.117B(6), on it “not being reasonable to expect the [qualifying] child to leave the UK” (EX.1(a) (ii)). Paragraph R-LTRPT.1.1, which concerns requirements for limited leave to remain as a parent, includes a relationship requirement that covers a child who is “a British citizen or settled in the UK” (E-LTRPT.2.2(c), but by E-LTRPT.2.2(b) the child concerned must be “living in the UK”. 50. In relation to entry clearance applications , Section E-ECPT includes a route for parents of a child who is either a British citizen or settled in the UK (E-ECPT.2.2(c)), but (again) the child must be “living in the UK”. The Rules do provide at GEN.1.3(c) that for the purposes of Appendix FM “references to a British citizen in the UK also include a British citizen who is coming to the UK with the applicant as their partner or parent ” (emphasis added) but in the case of a British citizen child with an applicant parent the only applicable rules currently are those set out in GEN. 3.1 – GEN. 3.3. under the heading “Exceptional circumstances”. As we have seen, EX.1 does not apply when applicants apply from abroad for entry clearance, even though they have British citizen children in the UK. 51. Although there is no path, therefore, for parents of a British citizen child not living in the UK under the main routes to entry clearance set out in Appendix FM, GEN.3.3.2 does require the decision-maker, in considering whether there are exceptional circumstances giving rise to a breach of Article 8 because such a refusal (including refusal of entry clearance) “would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member whose Article 8 rights it is evident from that information would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.” (emphasis added). That clearly requires the decision-maker to take into account the impact on any relevant child, although the definition of “relevant child” makes no reference to nationality. We shall come back to this aspect of the Rules later on.
- 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
