The Court found that where a family had completed seven years’ residence before the policy was withdrawn, then they were entitled to the benefit of the policy, even where they had not sought to regularise their position until after its withdrawal. It therefore found that the decisions in Mr. Rahman’s and Mrs. Adams’s cases not to give them and their families the benefit of the policy was conspicuously unfair and amounted to an abuse of power. The Court therefore quashed the decisions and ordered the Secretary of State to consider their applications under the policy.
However, in the case of Mrs. Abbassi, she and her family had completed their seven years about nine months after the withdrawal of the policy and her application failed.
Although this is a welcome decision, it is of serious concern that the Secretary of State has been implementing the withdrawal of the policy in a manner which the Court found to amount to an abuse of power.
It is also important to bear in mind that the withdrawal of the policy does not mean that long residence of families with children now counts for nothing. It is still a relevant factor to take into account in determining whether removal would violate the right to respect for family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, when the policy was withdrawn, the then Immigration Minister Mr. Woolas stated that the policy had been replaced ‘with consideration under the immigration rule and article 8 of the ECHR’.
If you require advice on this or any other UK immigration matter, please do not hesitate to contact one of Gherson’s specialist lawyers and advisors.
</?xml:namespace>