Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to private and family life. This rights is relied on frequently in immigration cases. The Home Office are allowed to interfere with a person’s right to private and family life where this is a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of maintaining effective immigration control. The question in many immigration cases is whether the Home Office’s interference with this right is proportionate.
In GM (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1630, handed down on Friday last week, the Court of Appeal provides a helpful summary of the current legal position in relation to private and family life cases. This area of law is constantly developing. There have been 4 highly significant Supreme Court cases in just 3 years addressing the correct approach to article 8 cases. So it is helpful to have a decision drawing together the various strands and summarising the general principles.
For a detailed look at the case, see my post on Free Movement here - https://www.freemovement.org.uk/court-of-appeal-cheatsheet-on-human-rights-in-immigration-cases/
14/02/21 Via Email15 February 2021
12/12/20 - Via Yell05 February 2021
22/10/2020 - Via Yell05 February 2021
RT @muhammadmokaev: Thanks for refusing my wife’s visa, after representing UK🇬🇧for 9 years 👏
about 4 days ago