Ramos (Suzara) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1988 |
| Date | 24 November 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Dillon, Taylor LJJ Sir John Megaw
Miss C M Fielden for the appellant
M H Kent for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgments:
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Sajid Mahmood [1988] Imm AR 121.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Suzara Ramos (unreported, QBD, 8 March 1988).
Child application for entry clearance refused one parent settled in United Kingdom whether that parent had had sole responsibility for the child's upbringing the correct approach to the requirements of the rule. HC 169 paras. 50(e), 50(f).
Appeal from Simon Brown J. The appellant was a Filipino whose mother was settled in the United Kingdom. She was refused entry clearance as a dependent daughter, the entry clearance officer not being satisfied that her mother had had the sole responsibility for her upbringing, as the rules, in the circumstances required. Appeals to an adjudicator and the Tribunal were dismissed; before the appellate authorities it was also argued that (as required by paragraph 50(f) of HC 169) there were serious and compelling reasons that made her exclusion from the United Kingdom undesirable.
An application for judicial review was dismissed. The learned judge at first instance had found nothing perverse in the findings of fact by the appellate authorities that the appellant's grandmother had played the principal role in her upbringing: he had endorsed the approach in ex parte Sajid Mahmood. On appeal the arguments below were reiterated.
Held:
1. Such cases had to be looked at broadly: it would not assist to attempt to draw up a check list of factors to be weighed up in each case.
2. The approach in ex parte Sajid Mahmood was approved, although the Court was uncertain how far it was helpful to say that the parent sponsor had to show she had remained ultimately in sole conrol of the child's upbringing.
3. On the facts, the conclusion of the Tribunal could not be faulted on Wednesbury principles.
Dillon LJ: Miss Suzara Ramos appeals against the decision of Simon Brown J in the Divisional Court dated 8 March 1988 whereby the judge refused the appellant judicial review and quashing of a decision of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal which had dismissed an appeal by the appellant against a decision of an adjudicator who in turn had dismissed an appeal by the appellant against a refusal by the Home Office to grant the appellant entry clearance to this country.
The appellant is a citizen of the Philippines. She was born on 27 January 1969. Her parents were married but had only lived together for a short time and had separated before the appellant's birth. The father, so far as the evidence before us goes, has never had contact with the appellant or played any part in her life.
In 1974, when the appellant was about five, the mother, Carmelita (as she is called), came to this country to get domestic work. The object was to get money to remit to the Philippines to support her child, the appellant. She left the appellant with the grandmother, the mother's mother, living in what seems to have been a family home in fairly poor conditions also shared by a brother of the mother and the brother's wife. There is a fairly extended family.
The mother represented, when she sought admission to this country, that she was a single woman and concealed the fact that she was married and had a child. Since the mother's admission to this country in 1974 she has only seen the appellant once which was on a six week visit to the Philippines in 1977. We are told that the reason for not going back to the Philippines more often was that, having practised deception on entryfor which she may not perhaps be very greatly blamed as others did so and there were agencies that sought to persuade would-be entrants of low education that that was the way to come inbut having practised deception on entry if she left the country and it came to the knowledge of the Immigration Authorities that she had a daughter and was married she would not have been allowed to return.
At any rate in 1978 the mother was granted settlement here. Somewhere around that time she started co-habiting with a Mr Halili...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alagon v Entry clearance officer, Manila
...Sajid Mahmood [1988] Imm AR 121. Kirkwood v City of Glasgow District Council [1988] SLT 430. Suzara Ramos v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1989] Imm AR 148. Bain v McConnell [1991] SLT 691. Spencer v Davey (unreported, CS, 19 November 1991). West v Secretary of State for Scotland [1992] SLT 6......
-
TD (paragraph 297(I) (e): 'Sole responsibility') Yemen
...Nmaju v Entry Clearance Officer [2001] INLR 26 Qui Zou v Entry Clearance Officer [2002] UKIAT 07463 Ramos v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1989] Imm AR 148 Rudolph v Entry Clearance Officer, Colombo [1984] Imm AR 84 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pusey [1972] Imm AR 240 Sloley v......
-
TD (Paragraph 297(i))
...to the relevant cases in the Court of Appeal. Three cases provide important guidance on the issue of “sole responsibility”: Ramos v IAT [1989] Imm AR 148, Nmaju v SSHD [2001] INLR 26 and Cenir v Entry Clearance Officer [2003] EWCA Civ 572. 21 In Ramos, the appellant was from the Philippines......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-09-23, HU/14539/2016
...the issue of whether the appellant had shown that she met the requirements of the Immigration Rules:- “11.(a) In R v IAT ex parte Ramos 1989 Imm AR 148 the Court of Appeal said that the phrase “sole responsibility was not to be construed literally because the situation presupposes a child a......