Immigration_  Validity and recognition of marriage _ Paragraph 281(iii) of the Immigration Rules_ Lack of mental capacity of the sponsor_ Article 8_ Contact between the Sponsor and the Applicant:

ZB & HB (Validity and recognition of marriage) Pakistan [2009] UKAIT 00040 (11 September 2009)

The Court of Appeal held  that :

A marriage that is otherwise valid is not rendered void by demonstration of the incapacity of one of the parties at the time of the ceremony; but a marriage that is valid may, in special circumstances (which may or may not relate to capacity) not be entitled to recognition as such.

01.10.1009

Immigration _ Immigration Rules_ Whether requirement of self-sufficiency discriminating against disabled_Indefinite Leave to Remain as the spouse of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom _ Paragraph  281(v) of the Immigration Rules:  

AM (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer [2009] EWCA Civ 634 (01 July 2009)

The Court of Appeal held that the requirement of paragraph 281(v) of HC 395 (the maintenance requirement) for a disabled British citizen did not amount to disporportionate discrimination against disabled sponsors under art 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Date: 24/08/2009  

Immigration _ Article 8 _ Indefinite Leave to Remain as the parent of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom _ Paragraph 317 and 322(7) of the Immigration Rules:  

ZB (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 834 (30 July 2009)

The Court of Appeal emphasises the importance of Article 8, in particular where the focus is on the parent.

 Lord Justice Aikens said:

“I accept that, when considering family life for Article 8 purposes, where a court or tribunal is analysing the relationship of a parent and adult children, something more than normal emotional ties between them has to be shown. But where, as here, the focus is on the parent, the issue must be: how dependent is the older relative on the younger ones in the UK and does that dependency create something more than the normal emotional ties? Although this court is not finding facts, it is indisputable that the appellant is an insulin dependent diabetic who needs to be cared for and who is either wholly or largely financially dependent on her family in the UK.”

Date: 01/08/2009