IA186622015 & Ors.

For the Appellants: Mr S Karim of Counsel, instructed by M A Consultants (London)

The two grounds are closely interrelated but it is convenient if I deal with the second ground first. There are two discernible errors in the judge's assessment of this issue. First, the judge failed to address the appellants' circumstances holistically. Rather than assessing whether taking all matters relevant to the best interests of the child into account it was reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK, the judge treated the answer to this issue as one that could be simply deduced from his conclusions as regards the first two appellants' cases. At paragraphs 33 and 34 the judge wrote:

"33. As will be apparent from above, this appellant has to show that he has lived in this country for seven years and it would not be reasonable to expect him to leave. The Home Office position is that he will be returning to his home country with his parents who will provide for him.

Current judicial authorities suggest that it is generally in the best interest of a child to be with its parents. In view of the conclusion to which I reached in relation to the first and second appellants appeals, it must follow that it is in the best interest of the third appellant that he to be removed with his parents so that he can be with them."

A second error concerned the failure of the judge to treat the fact that the third appellant had lived continuously in the UK for over seven years as a factor of significant weight. As stated by Elias LJ in MA (Pakistan) [2016] EWCA Civ 705 .