Permission to appeal has been granted in a case which will consider the "critical issue" of what would happen if the first appellant (responsible for the care of her grandchild) were removed to China and the grandchild did not follow, along with the secondary appeal point of whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to dismiss this appeal.

CG (China) and EL (China) v SSHD (Court of Appeal, C5/2015/0067)

Following an oral hearing in December 2015 Lord Justice Ryder has granted permission to appeal in a case involving a mother (the first appellant), her adult son (the second appellant) and her grandchild.

Describing the context as being of “considerable importance”, Ryder LJ noted that the uncontradicted evidence was that the first appellant was responsible for the care of her grandchild. However, there had been no assessment by either the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal of what would happen if the first appellant were removed and the grandchild did not follow. This was a “critical issue”.

Ryder LJ also granted permission to the appellants to argue that in fact the First-tier Tribunal had not had jurisdiction to hear and dismiss this appeal, given the Upper Tribunal’s finding that that the immigration decisions taken in their cases were “invalid”/“unlawful”. These decisions had followed a successful judicial review against the Secretary of State where she had agreed to provide the appellants with appealable immigration decisions.

The appeals are likely to be heard later this year (2016).

The appellants are represented by Vijay Jagadesham from Garden Court North Chambers, instructed by Margaret Finch from TRP Solicitors. They represented the appellants in the judicial review proceedings and before the Tribunals.

Related Barristers