Chengjie Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE KEENE,LORD JUSTICE RIX |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 75,[2005] EWCA Civ 1645 |
| Docket Number | C5/2005/1819 |
| Date | 16 February 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1645
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Rix
Lord Justice Keene
C5/2005/1819
MR N ARMSTRONG (instructed by Wilson & Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent was not represented and did not attend
I do not intend to rehearse the facts of this case. They are essentially clear from the main documents in the bundle and, in particular, the immigration judge's decision, the skeleton argument and the case statement supplied by Mr Armstrong.
It seems to me that it is properly arguable that the immigration judge went wrong in paragraph 31 of his decision, a paragraph which was clearly a significant part of his reasoning. His reference to Huang at paragraphs 52, 53 and 56 of his decision show that he was regarding this as a case where Article 8 was being used as a potential means of circumventing the Immigration Rules. In other words, he treated it as a case where an exception had to be found to those Rules. What he seems to have overlooked is that Lord Justice Laws in Huang was dealing with policy, mainly as contained within in the immigration rules but not wholly or exclusively so. Policy is something to be found in a number of sources, of which Immigration Rules may be the most important part but not the sole part.
Here reliance has been placed by counsel for the present applicant on policy as set out in the Secretary of State's Family Reunion Policy. That reliance had been made clear before the immigration judge, as one sees from the skeleton argument for the then appellant, particularly in paragraphs 2 and 3. And, indeed, there is reference to the submission in the decision itself at paragraph 12. So the applicant was not asking so much for an exception to be made to policy but arguing that he came within it. To do so under the terms of the Family Reunion Policy he had to show that there were compelling compassionate circumstances. That was not, as such, the test applied by the immigration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PT (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...8 would be a very small minority. That is still his expectation. But he was not purporting to lay down a legal test.” 12 In Miao v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 75, 12, Sedley gave assistance upon the practical application of the Strasbourg approach, which I gratefully adopt. He said: “…the state mu......
-
R (MJ (Angola)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...CALamguindaz v United Kingdom (1993) 17 EHRR 213Mehemi v France (2003) 38 EHRR 301Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 75; [2006] INLR 473, CAMoustaquim v Belgium (1991) 13 EHRR 802N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 885, GCNasri v France (1995) 21 EHRR 458Niemetz......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-08-23, [2006] UKAIT 70 (WK (Article 8, Expulsion cases, Review of case-law))
...EWCA Civ 1328, Tural Boran [2005] EWCA Civ 1141, ZT [2005] EWCA Civ 1421, SN [2005] EWCA Civ 1683, Janosevic [2005] EWCA Civ 1711, Miao [2006] EWCA Civ 75, Krasniqi [2006] EWCA Civ 391, Tozlukaya [2006] EWCA Civ 379 and R(on the application of (1) Karas (2) Miladinovic and Secretary of Stat......
-
WK (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...interference with private life) Serbia and Montenegro [2005] UKAIT 00113 Miao v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK [2006] EWCA Civ 75; [2006] Imm AR 379; [2006] INLR 473 MK (Mental Illness—Articles 3 and 8) Pakistan [2005] UKIAT 00075 MS (inability to make entry clearance applica......