Family Migration

Admission of Family Members is a balance between interests of individual British Citizens and the entrance of those who would normally not qualify to enter and therefore not the type of people the Government would like to admit. 

Bevan (1986) said marriage "offered an opportunity to vent a gamut of powerful and well rehearsed emotions". 

Concerns about chain migration and an influx of non-skilled and non-english speaking migrants, as well as the possibility of anarchaic and oppresive lifestyles being practiced in the UK. 

Recent regulations have two main themes: 1. Encouraging integration of spouses 2. Preventing sham marriages

Bibi v SSHD [2013] failed in its challange against the new language requirements for spouses since there are exemption.

Baiai [2008] found that the Government Certificate to Marry scheme to contravene convention rights and thus was abolished 

Symonds (2011) noted that the UK had more obstacles for marriage and entry than most other European countries whilst Meylor (2013) built on this when dicussing the lack of legal representation due to the changes in legal aid

Warren (2013) called Appendix FM "An unlawful attempt to overturn Human Rights law... fettering the discretion of decision makers,"

The ECtHR have consistently held that a parent-child relationship constitutes a right to private life and in other types, the quality of the tie is relevant - Barrehas

Huang and Kashmiri stated if a life abroad cannot be reasonably expected to be enjoyed it is a barrier to deportation, whilst Muse [2013] added that the proportionality of the situation is key

1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion on this appeal prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and am in complete agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. My astonishment that the case should have had to come this far for the, as it seems to me, obvious conclusion that the appellant and her four year old child should be permitted to remain in this country with the appellant's husband and the child's father prompts me to add a few words of my own.
2. Not many would dispute, and I do not, that would-be immigrants who desire to remain permanently in this country should apply for permission to do so before coming here. It is the Government's policy that that should be so and that a failed asylum seeker should return, or be returned, to his or her country and make from there any applications for the right to reside in this country that he or she desires to make. But policies that involve people cannot be, and should not be allowed to become, rigid inflexible rules. The bureaucracy of which Kafka wrote cannot be allowed to take root in this country and the courts must see that it does not.

SS55 Borders, Citizensgip and Immigration Act 2009 imposed a duty on the S to ensure immigration/asylum duties are carreid out having due regard to the need to safeguard and promote welgare of children.

Lady Hale at para 23 said this was the "spirit if not the precise language" of the obligation, and then at 24 she said that the ECHR requires national states to make Childrens Interests a primary consideration in accordance with the law (per Art 8(2)).