Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(1)� This case provides an example of the importance of co-operation and communication between the two jurisdictions, family and immigration, where two sets of parallel proceedings, closely dependent upon each other are ongoing.
(3)� Since those arrangements satisfied H�s best interests in the family proceedings, where those interests were the paramount concern, it followed that the Tribunal could be satisfied, when considering H�s best interests as a primary consideration in the deportation proceedings, that the appellant�s deportation did not interfere with H�s best interests.
(4)� The arrangements identified by the family court as meeting H�s best interests provided for the likelihood of the appellant�s deportation. The family court took into account [53] of the Tribunal�s Ruling in [2012] UKUT 218 .
(5)� The appellant�s deportation was, accordingly, not unlawful on human rights grounds.
We direct that in any report of these proceedings the identity of the child H and her parents shall not be revealed.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.