UI2023000394 & Ors

              This is an appeal by the Appellants against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Borsada, (the "Judge"), dated 13 January 2023, in which he dismissed the Appellants' appeals against the Respondent's decision to refuse to grant further leave to remain. The Appellants had applied for further leave to remain on Article 8, family life grounds.

              Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Norton Taylor on 21 March 2023 as follows:

"1. The first and second appellants are husband and wife and are citizens of India. The third appellant is an Indian citizen and is the son of the first and second. It is said that the fourth appellant, also the child of the first and second, is a British citizen, although if that were the case I cannot see how she could have been an appellant in these proceedings (it might be that she had previously been stateless, but had been registered as a British citizen during the course of the proceedings - I am assuming that this is the correct position for the purposes of my decision on permission).

The appellants' Article 8 claim was based on the assertion that it would be unreasonable for the third and, in particular, the fourth appellants (born in 2012 and 2017 respectively) to accompany their parents to India. The third appellant arrived in United Kingdom with his parents in 2016 and was not a qualifying child at the time of the judge's decision. By virtue of her British citizenship, the fourth appellant was a qualifying child.

The judge concluded that it would not be unreasonable for the fourth appellant to leave the United Kingdom: [9]-[12], [14]. Relevant matters were taken into account by the judge in her overall assessment. However, as contended in the grounds of appeal, it is arguable that the judge failed to have any, or any adequate, regard to the significance attached to British citizenship (even if that status had been acquired during the course of proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal)."