Have a question?
033 3772 0409

Immigration Solicitors

Children in Immigration Cases (18 April 2011)

Date: 18/04/2011
Duncan Lewis, Immigration Solicitors, Children in Immigration Cases

By Nieki Shamlou

Thousands of people settle in the UK every year after obtaining valid leave to remain here, but in many cases, they do so without the appropriate means of leave. One thing is certain though, families are bound to be formed. Status or no status children end up coming and to that extent their rights too have to be considered.

A number of cases have come before the courts fairly recently, but the Supreme Court decision handed down on 1 February 2011, has put the ‘best interests of the child’ at the centre of decision-making in immigration cases involving the deportation or removal of their parents.

The facts in the case of ZH Tanzania clearly highlights a situation whereby the appellant a mother of two who originally came from Tanzania had an appalling immigration history and sought to avoid deportation in various ways.

Her claims for asylum were rejected by the UK Border Agency. In total, she made three unsuccessful claims for asylum - one in her own identity and two claims in false identities.

In the middle of all that, she established a relationship with a British national and the couple ended up having two children. The children were both British, having been born in the UK to parents, one of whom a British citizen.

Subsequently the parents separated but the father continued to see the children regularly. The Tribunal and the court of appeal had ordered that the children should be removed to Tanzania where they could continue to live with their mother. The Court of Appeal had criticised the position recommended by the Tribunal that the children could go and live with their father, whilst the mother was to be removed to Tanzania.

The Supreme Court summed up the very basic interests of the children after analysing various cases and ruled that:

Substituting “father” for “mother”, all of these considerations apply to the children in this case. They are British children; they are British, not just through the “accident” of being born here, but by descent from a British parent; they have an unqualified right of abode here; they have lived here all their lives; they are being educated here; they have other social links with the community here; they have a good relationship with their father here.

It is not enough to say that a young child may readily adapt to life in another country.


In the premises, the best interest of the children had to take priority against all other factors. Lady Hale stated that the best interests of the former British-born children, now aged 12 and 9, must be a ‘primary consideration’.

She was of the view that the children were British, not just through the ‘accident’ of being born here, but because they had a British father, they had lived all their lives here and were educated here. ‘It is not enough to say that a young child may readily adapt to life in another country’.

Lady Hale went on to further state: ‘The intrinsic importance of citizenship cannot be played down. As citizens, these children have rights which they will not be able to exercise if they move to another country.’

Lord Kerr was of the view that ‘only reasons of considerable force’ could displace the primacy of the best interest’s consideration.

This decision has been marked as a significant step forward and also highlighted the vulnerability of children in the immigration system and the courts; the UK Border Agency and the Legal Services Commission have now been called upon to put in place child-sensitive procedures to ensure they give full effect to the judgment in their duties to safeguard children. The current economic strain surrounding Public Funding means that children in similar situations may be denied access to justice and if the matter comes to head such a case may not reach the courts in the future.

Alison Harvey, general secretary of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, has commented that while the case did not mean a child’s interest cannot be outweighed by other matters, or that a parent’s immigration history will be irrelevant, it does mean that decision-makers must be careful to avoid treating children as responsible for their parents’ actions.

In essence it has been welcomed that an emphasis has been put on the court that it is ensured that children are given a proper opportunity to have their views heard.


For all Immigration related matter contact us now.Contact Us

Call us now on 033 3772 0409 or click here to send online enquiry.
Duncan Lewis is the trading name of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Limited. Registered Office is 143-149 Fenchurch St, London, EC3M 6BL. Company Reg. No. 3718422. VAT Reg. No. 718729013. A list of the company's Directors is displayed at the registered offices address. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority . Offices all across London and in major cities in the UK. ©Duncan Lewis >>Legal Disclaimer, Copyright & Privacy Policy. Duncan Lewis do not accept service by email.