[2025] UKUT 00352 (IAC)

The principles for the interpretation of the Immigration Rules were set out by Lord Briggs (with whom Lord Kitchin, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose and Sir Declan Morgan agreed) in R (Wang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 21. He ruled that:

“29.

It was common ground between counsel that the leading authority on the general principles to be applied in interpreting the Immigration Rules is Mahad v Entry Clearance Officer [2010] 1WLR 48 and, in particular, the following two passages in the judgment of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood JSC. The first is his citation at para 10 from Lord Hoffmann’s judgment in MO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1WLR 1230, para 4:

“Like any other question of construction, this [whether a rule change applies to all undetermined applications or only to subsequent applications] depends upon the language of the rule, construed against the relevant background. That involves a consideration of the immigration rules as a whole and the function which they serve in the administration of immigration policy.”

An adoption of a child which takes place outside the United Kingdom can arise in the context of a number of different scenarios. A key consideration is whether the adoption was made under the 1993 Hague Convention of Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (“a Hague Convention adoption”) or elsewhere, for example a designated country.

By operation of Section 66(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, (“ACA 2002”), the meaning of adoption includes a ‘convention adoption’ (S.66(1)(c)); an ‘overseas adoption’ (S.66(1)(d); or an ‘adoption recognised by the law of England and Wales and effected under the law of any other country’ (S.66(1)(e)).

An ‘overseas adoption’ ranks automatically as an adoption and is defined in S.87(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 as (a) an adoption of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State, being a description of adoptions effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, but (b) does not include a Convention adoption.

The specification of overseas adoption from 3 January 2014 is now governed by the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 (SI 2013 No 1801) (“the Adoption Order 2013”) which states:

“Overseas Adoptions

2.

(1) An adoption of a child is specified as an overseas adoption if it is an adoption effected under the law of a country or territory listed in the Schedule after the coming into force of this Order and is not a Convention adoption.

(2)

In this Article “law” does not include customary or common law.

Evidence of an overseas adoption

3.—(1) The following documents may be provided as evidence that an overseas adoption has been effected—

(a)

a certified copy of an entry made, in accordance with the law of the country or territory concerned, in a public register relating to the recording of adoptions and showing that the adoption has been effected; or

(b)

a certificate that the adoption has been effected, signed or purporting to be signed by a person authorised by the law of the country or territory concerned to sign such a certificate, or a certified copy of such a certificate.

(2)

Where a document produced by virtue of paragraph (1) is not in English, the Registrar General may require the production of an English translation of the document before being satisfied of the matters specified in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

(3)

Nothing in this Article may be construed as precluding proof, in accordance with the Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act 1933, or the Oaths and Evidence (Overseas Authorities and Countries) Act 1963, or otherwise, that an overseas adoption has been effected.

…

SCHEDULE

…

India”