[2025] UKUT 00089 (IAC)

The respondent has now made decisions dated 30 December 2024 to refuse the applications for Entry Clearance made by the parents. The decisions are in the same terms for each of the parents. In summary, the respondent concluded that the parents do not qualify for entry to the UK under Appendix Family Reunion (Protection) of the immigration rules, and that Article 8 would not be breached by a refusal of the application to be admitted to the UK. The respondent states:

“…In the present context, there is a particular public interest in not providing a route for an unaccompanied child to sponsor a parent (that public interest being in not creating an incentive that might lead to the lives and safety of children being put at risk). This public interest is reflected in the Immigration Rules…”

The respondent draws upon the decision of the Court of Appeal, and having considered the evidence, concludes that the parents can enjoy family life with the children in France, where all of the rights and freedoms provided for in the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights are fully respected. The respondent states that there is a good prospect of the respondent being able to organise, with the agreement of France, the return of the children to France within a reasonable time and encourages the parents to take positive steps to assist with the reunification of the family in France. The respondent refers to the decision of the Family Division in Re A [2024] EWFC 110 and also to the need to discourage the risks created, specifically towards children, in criminal gangs organising such perilous journeys. The respondent considered the best interests of the children and concluded that the best interests lie in their being reunited with their parents, wherever their parents are. Reunification in the UK is outweighed, the respondent claims, by the public interest.

The respondent also concluded that the decision to refuse Entry Clearance is not in breach of Article 3 and that there are no other relevant factors that justify the grant of Entry Clearance.

The respondent’s decisions to refuse the applications for Entry Clearance (as decisions to refuse a human rights claim) carry a right of appeal under s82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on the ground that the decision is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

During the course of the hearing before us, we were told that a Notice of Appeal has been filed with the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”). We were told by Ms Knorr that there has been no application for the hearing of the appeal to be expedited and Ms Knorr was unable to confirm whether any such application for expedition will be made. She said that the appeal has been lodged and the applicants will now turn their mind to the evidence to be relied upon before the FtT.

We draw the parties’ attention to the judgment of the President of the Family Division and Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia in Re HR (Parallel Child Abduction and Asylum Proceedings) [2024] EWHC 1626 (Fam), and in particular, the observations and guidance set out concerning the practical interplay between the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings and asylum claims. There are plainly steps that can be taken by the parties to ensure matters are expedited.