IA074262014 & Ors.

The appellants are citizens of Algeria. The first and second appellants are husband and wife and the third appellant their adult daughter. Their respective dates of birth are 4 October 1951, 16 June 1958 and 17 January 1986. They appeal against decisions of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing their appeals both under the immigration rules and on human rights grounds against the decisions made on 14 November 2013 refusing their applications for leave to remain on human rights grounds and giving directions for their removal.

At the hearing the judge heard evidence from the appellants, Fahd and two witnesses. It was confirmed in submissions [37] that none of the appellants placed reliance upon para 395C of the rules (which had been raised in the skeleton argument) nor was it asserted that the first appellant�s medical condition was such as to reach the threshold required to engage article 3.

The judge went onto consider article 8 directing himself in accordance with Haleemudeen v Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 558 that he should first have regard to the requirements of the rules which should be given greater weight than had previously been thought to be the case. He also took into account the determination of the Upper Tribunal in Gulshan (article 8 - new rules - correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 where it was said that an appellant needed to show �non standard and particular features demonstrating that removal will be unjustifiably harsh.�

The second ground argues that the judge failed to consider the relationship between all the family members and in particular the fact that Fahd had been granted limited leave to remain. Mr Ball argued that the judge had been wrong to consider whether there were compelling or exceptional circumstances and that contrary to the guidance of the Court of Appeal in MM v Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 985 at [129], an intermediate test had wrongly been applied.

Mr Ball also argued that the judge had failed to take a number of relevant factors into account including the delay and the consequential impact in the nature and extent of the appellant�s private life in the UK, the fact that Fahd had been granted limited leave and the extent to which the appellants have integrated into society in the UK.