The unfairness of withdrawing a full right of appeal for family visitors.

When it was proposed to restrict appeal rights in immigration as it was felt that an undeserving category of people go to challenge decisions, many saw it as the solution to the backlog of cases being heard at the tribunal. Fewer appeals would mean that cases would be dealt with quicker.

The restricted class have incorporated those whom in our view should not be restricted. The change has lead to parents not being able to appeal visa refusals if their application to visit a child is denied.

The special relationship of parents and child should have a full right of appeal.

A limited right of appeal defined by Section 84/82 of the Nationality Immigration Asylum Act 2002 (NIA2002) only allows an appeal if the decision is essentially a compromise of a person’s Human Rights Act or a compromise under the Race Relations Act.

The Human Rights Acts which are likely to be relevant are Articles 8 and Article 3.

The way the court interprets a compromise of Articles 8 and 3 rights is quite narrow so that, in the majority of cases, the courts are finding that there is no compromise of a person’s Article 8 rights and in majority of cases the tribunal do not find that the decisions of the entry clearance officer is a breach of the Race Relations Act as this has a high threshold of behaviour before a breach is considered to have occurred.

Increasingly fundamental rights are being eroded and Mickey Mouse decisions are left to stand. This area of the Family Appeal Regulation should be revisited.

If you have been affected by entry clearance decisions, contact We Talk Law for expert, affordable legal advice.

www.wetalklaw.com. Tel: 0203 002 4898

Posted in Family Law and tagged , , , , ,