CB v Decision of the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal

At what was a complete rehearing of the Article 8 issue before the AIT, it was conceded that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant's two children to relocate to his country of origin or to expect his wife to do so, leaving the children in the UK . Therefore, in answering the first four of Lord Bingham's five questions in R (on the application of Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 2 AC 368 (at para 17), the AIT held that:

the applicant's removal would be an interference with the applicant's exercise of his right to respect for his family life;

the consequences of that interference would be of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of article 8;

the interference was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the prevention of crime.

Accordingly, the issue became a narrow one, in terms of the fifth question, of whether the interference was proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved.