Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

SS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2009] EWCA Civ 1136

Case No: C5/2009/0885
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 1136
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

[AIT No: IA/10456/2008]

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Wednesday, 7th October 2009

Before:

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY

SS (India)

Appellant

- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE

HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

(DAR Transcript of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Z Jafferji (instructed by Messrs Idris & Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.

.

Judgment

Lord Justice Sedley:

1.

Mr Zainul Jafferji today renews the application for permission to appeal of an applicant who, unless his appeal succeeds, is to be deported. It is sufficient for the present to say that if his case stood alone, he would richly deserve deportation. But although he has been here unlawfully, he has a wife and now teenage children who are British citizens, and his deportation is likely to mean the break-up of this family. I say this because it is evident that for the family to uproot itself and travel back to India with him would be a considerable hardship and is very likely to prove unviable and unacceptable.

2.

It is only in recent months and years that the Article 8 interests of the family of somebody who himself is liable to deportation have been brought fully into the frame. What this court said in AB (Jamaica) [2008] HRLR 465 was endorsed in Beoku-Betts [[2008] UKHL 39, and has since been developed in particular in the decision of this court, which Mr Jafferji has drawn to my attention today, in AF (Jamaica) [2009] EWCA Civ 240.

3.

On the merits of the present case the Tribunal was in two minds, and expressly said that it was deciding the case on what it called a fine balance. That would not matter by itself. Tribunals of fact and merit frequently have to decide finely balanced issues, and the fact that the balance was fine does nothing to render the decision appealable. But the factors here are arguably such as to create in law a different balance, and although I have not formed the view that there is a particularly strong prospect of success, it does seem to me to merit the attention of the court. It is in a sense a paradigm case of an applicant who himself is without merit but who is dependent for resisting deportation on the merits of his family and the effect upon them of his deportation.

4.

For that reason I propose to give permission to appeal.

Order: Application granted.

SS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2009] EWCA Civ 1136

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (88.1 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.