[2024] UKUT 00234 (IAC)

On 30 April 2023, Mr Aslam made submissions, relying primarily on his skeleton argument. He submitted that in this case the family life still exists between the appellants and the sponsor and, relying on MA v Denmark [2021] ECHR 628 at [145] that the existence of an Article 3 risk may in principle reduce the latitude enjoyed by States in striking a fair balance between the competing interests of family reunification and immigration control. He accepted that the test applicable in this case is high but that on the particular facts and given the preserved findings from the previous decision the balance fell in the appellants’ favour in the particular circumstances of this case.

Mr Mullen submitted that the United Kingdom had complied in this case with is obligations by granting entry clearance to the sponsor’s family. He submitted that the authorities cited by the appellant did not assist in the cases where, as here, they were addressing a non-nuclear family. He submitted further that the actual family life that now existed was somewhat attenuated, it now being ten years since the family lived together, which diminishes the extent to which a refusal to grant entry clearance is disproportionate.

Mr Mullen submitted also that there was an acceptance here that there was no financial dependency, which is relevant to the quality of family life engaged, drawing my attention to Dabo v Sweden [2024] ECHR 30 at [105].

He submitted further in this case there would be a significant recourse to public funds which was relevant to proportionality and that a higher bar applies where, as here, reliance is on a positive application on the part of a State to take action rather than a negative obligation not to do something.

In reply, Mr Aslam submitted in this case, unlike Dabo, findings had been made as to the family life.