t would be disproportionate for the appellant to be removed unless she would be able to re-enter the UK
69. The respondent has conce ded that there are insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside the UK and that it would not be reasonable or proportionate for the appellant’s family unit to be indefinitely separated . I t follows, therefore, that if the appellant would be unable to re-enter the UK after her removal for an indefinite (or lengthy) period her appeal would fall to be allowed on the basis of the respondent’s concession . 70. The appeal cannot , however, succeed on this basis because we have found that the appellant w ill be able to re-enter the UK within 4 – 9 months of her removal, and therefore there will not be indefinite , or lengthy, separation .
- DECISION AND REASONS
- kground
- and Issues in Dispute
- Evidence of the appellant
- Evidence of the appellant’s partner
- Documentary evidence
- Assessment of the evidenc
- Findings of Fact
- respondent
- t would be disproportionate for the appellant to be removed unless she would be able to re-enter the UK
- Immigration Rules
- Chikwamba
- principle’)
- must
- Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
- and the reasonableness of expecting the appellant’s daughter to leave the UK
- (Case C-34/09)
- the appellant’s
- her daughter
- being deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of her European Union citizenship rights
- The test of compulsion is thus a practical test to be applied to the actual facts and not to a theoretical set of facts.
- the Court of Appeal was wrong in this case to bring the question of the mother’s choice into the assessment of compulsion.
- Decision