JA (Appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0075

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

A parent’s relationship with a child resident in the UK can create a right to remain in the UK under Article 8 of the ECHR. The question on this appeal is what approach the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) should adopt where there are simultaneous immigration proceedings in which a person resists removal from the UK on the basis of their relationship with a child and family court proceeding in which that person seeks access to (or custody of) that child. (1) In such circumstances, should immigration proceedings always be adjourned pending resolution of family court proceedings except where the person resisting removal is a foreign criminal (or there are other exceptional circumstances)? (2) If immigration proceedings need not always be adjourned, what approach should the FTT take to factual and evaluative questions in-dispute before the family court?

Facts

In 2005 JA, a Bangladeshi national, moved to the UK on a one-year visa. He overstayed this visa. In 2019 he married a British citizen by proxy and shortly afterwards he was granted leave to the remain in the UK on the basis of this marriage. JA and his wife had a baby in 2020. Shortly afterwards, JA was cautioned by the police for common assault of his wife. JA’s wife alleges that during this period he was also violent to her on several other occasions. In August 2021, the relationship collapsed. After the relationship’s collapse, JA moved from London to York. Although JA stated in his FTT evidence that he was his daughter’s primary carer, in fact he had no contact whatsoever with her for three years after moving to York. In July 2022, JA started family court proceedings seeking contact with his daughter. In December 2022, JA applied to remain in the UK on the basis of his relationship with his daughter. The Home Secretary refused this application in February 2023 and denied JA leave to remain in the UK. JA appealed against this decision to the FTT on the basis that it infringed his right to a family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. JA argued that he was entitled to remain the in the UK at least until the family proceedings had concluded. The FTT found as fact that, both before and after the collapse of his marriage, JA had ‘a very minor degree of … interest in, and contact with, the child’. It also held that JA had initiated the family court proceedings as a procedural manoeuvre to strengthen his immigration position and had deliberately drawn out the family court proceedings. It noted that JA’s immigration status would be significantly strengthened if he had been in the UK for 20 years therefore it was in his interests for the family proceeding to stall. JA and his solicitor both failed to attend a family court hearing in August 2023. After this hearing, the proceedings were adjourned. By the date of the FTT hearing in May 2024, the family court proceeding had not been relisted and JA’s solicitor was unable to say when they would be relisted. The FTT considered JA had shown ‘very little commitment to the progression of his application’ for access to his daughter and made no attempt to expedite the family proceedings. This was a telling contrast with his highly proactive approach to the immigration proceedings. The FTT considered that in the circumstances, the strength of public interest in enforcing immigration controls outweighed JA’s right to a family life. It therefore held that the Home Secretary had been entitled to deny him leave to remain in the UK. JA appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The appeal failed. The family court reached a conclusion on JA’s case. JA appealed the Upper Tribunal decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also refused JA’s appeal, although it noted that JA was perfectly entitled to reapply to the Secretary of State in-light of the fresh circumstances. JA now appeals to the Supreme Court.