AD (Pakistan) v SSHD ( Court of Appeal, C5/2015/0812)
Following an oral hearing on 25 February 2016 the Court of Appeal (Floyd LJ) has granted permission to appeal in a case where the judge below accepted that the Appellant is a “devoted carer” to her father, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease. Despite this the judge concluded that the Appellant’s removal would not be a disproportionate interference under Article 8 of the ECHR because others could care for the father. In so concluding the judge relied on the “converse” of the very narrowly drawn adult dependent relative rule (E-ECDR.2.5).
In her application to the Court of Appeal the Appellant highlighted the restrictive and narrow terms of the adult dependent relative rule – such that the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration has concluded that this category appears to have been “all but closed” ( Report of the inquiry into new family migration rules - June 2013 ). She argued that this rule could not reflect what is required under Article 8. The Court of Appeal accepted that it would be appropriate for it to consider the “very narrow immigration rule”.
The Court also granted permission for the Appellant to challenge the way in which the judge had criticised the Appellant’s family without giving them any opportunity to address her concerns. It will also consider the appropriateness of the judge’s comments about what she thought would be “better” for the Appellant, who argued that this amounted to the judge imposing her own views and values on the Appellant.
The recent case of Myrtle Cothill (92 year old widow; Home Office dropped its threat to remove severely ill woman to her birth country of South Africa where she has no relatives) shares similar circumstances.