IA031342015 & ors

The appellants are citizens of Zimbabwe who were born in 1971, 1979 and 2000 respectively. The first and second appellants are husband and wife and the third appellant is their child. The appellants appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 2 January 2015 to refuse their applications for leave to remain. The First-tier Tribunal (Judge Kelly) in a decision promulgated on 22 April 2015 dismissed the appeal. The appellants now appeal, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.

In assessing the best interests of the third appellant, I have adopted the approach propounded by Lewison LJ in EV (Philippines v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 874 -

In my judgment, therefore, the assessment of the best interests of the children must be made on the basis that the facts are as they are in the real world. If one parent has no right to remain, but the other parent does, that is the background against which the assessment is conducted. If neither parent has the right to remain, then that is the background against which the assessment is conducted. Thus the ultimate question will be: is it reasonable to expect the child to follow the parent with no right to remain to the country of origin?

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.