07432 101 211

As a direct access immigration barrister who has been practising in London for many years now I have watched the ebb and flow of article 8 cases.
In 2008 the Supreme Court put to rest, so we thought, the issues as to
1. When it was reasonable to make a person go home to make a pointless, i.e. guaranteed application to return (Chikwamba);
2. When delay by the Home Office counted against the Home Office (EB (Kosovo)); and
3. That an Immigration Judge could consider the effects of a decision on other family members, Beoku-Betts
There matters lay until the new rules came into force in 2012 following the coalition victory in 2010.
Following this there have been a variety of decisions that have sought to erode article 9 and reduce it to a mere codicil of the Immigration Rules.
The case of Akyargo while it was a victory of sorts for the HO re the minimum earnings limit however what it did say at paragraphs 51 and 52 that
1. Chikwamba was still good law, i.e. that it might be a breach of article 8 to expect someone to go home if their application was bound to succeed;
2. EB (Kosovo) that in assessing article 8 if there was a delay on the part of the Home Office / Secretary of State for the Home Office that this counted against removal.
Essentially the Supreme Court were given the chance to review their own law and to decide whether it should still stand after 2012 and the draconian changes to the law brought into effect by the amendments to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
However, my concern is that the Home Office will seek to plug any gaps or make changes so as to water down the changes. It is my advice that if you or a loved one has an immigration issue or is concerned about their status that they get in touch with me or my team as soon as possible in order that we can take advantage of the law as it now stands rather than run the risk of further adverse changes.