header-logo header-logo

04 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

EV (Philippines) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 874, [2014] All ER (D) 211 (Jun)

Where the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had determined that the best interests of a child were to continue with his education in England, it then had to carry out the proportionality exercise. Whether or not it was in the interests of a child to continue his education in England might depend on what assumptions one made as to what happened to the parents. There could be cases where it was in the child’s best interests to remain in education in the UK even though one or both parents did not remain. The best interests of the child were to be determined by reference to the child alone without reference to the immigration history or status of either parent. In determining whether or not the need for immigration control outweighed the best interests of the children, it was necessary to determine the relative strength of the factors which made it in their best interests to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll