[2025] UKUT 00352 (IAC)

ST (Adoptions: ‘overseas’ adoptions: para 310) India

Heard at Field House

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Promulgated on 23 September 2025

Before

MR JUSTICE RITCHIE

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

ST

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant

and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

Representation

For the Appellant: Mr B Wood, counsel, Richmond Chambers LLP

For the Respondent: Mrs A Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Adoption:An adoption of a child which takes place outside the United Kingdom can arise in the context of a number of different scenarios. However, there is no exact correlation between the requirements that are to be met in the law of adoption and the requirements to be met under the Immigration Rules. The courts or other bodies concerned with the law of adoption perform different functions from that of the Secretary of State.

Although the recognition of an overseas or foreign adoption does not of itself prevent permission to enter or remain being refused, it plainly has implications upon the assessment of an Article 8 claim because of the recognition of the clear and permanent parent and child relationship. The adoption does not bind the Secretary of State in immigration proceedings, but an adoption that is otherwise recognised by the UK is plainly a relevant consideration in the consideration of an Article 8 claim.

‘Appendix Adoption’ was introduced into the Immigration Rules by the Statement of Changes (HC590) and took effect on 6 June 2024. Nevertheless, where an application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay, has been made before 6 June 2024, such applications will be decided in accordance with the Immigration Rules in force on 5 June 2024.

Paragraph 310(vi)(a) of the Immigration Rules: The natural meaning of the language used in para. 310(vi)(a) requires that at the point in time at which the adoption takes place, the adoption is to be effected by a decision taken by a competent administrative authority or Court, not merely some process or procedure, albeit lawful, by which the adoption takes place.

Paragraph 310(ix) of the Immigration Rules: The plain language of the Rule requires the appellant to establish that they were adopted due to the inability of their original parents or current carers to care for them. The focus is upon the position as it was at the time of the adoption. The word ‘inability’ used in the rules, adopting the plain ordinary language of the word means ‘not being able to do something’. The natural and ordinary meaning of the word ‘inability’ refers to “lacking skills, means or opportunity”. The rule does not cover a situation in which natural parents are able to care for the child, if they choose to do so, but, as an exercise of choice, do not want to do so.

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 (“HAMA”): Evidence of a valid adoption under HAMA will not be sufficient to meet the specific requirement in para. 310(vi)(a) of the Immigration Rules that the applicant was adopted “in accordance with a decision taken by the competent administrative authority or court … being a country whose adoption orders are recognised by the United Kingdom”.

The decision of the Upper Tribunal in SK ("Adoption" not recognised in UK) [2006] UKAIT 68 is not authority for the proposition that an adoption under HAMA amounts to a decision taken by a Court or competent administrative authority.

Decision and Reasons