Charles Bourne takes stock of the House of Lords’ decision in Huang and another v Home Secretary
In Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Kashmiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, [2007] All ER (D) 338 (Mar), the House of Lords issued its ruling on the correct approach of immigration appellate authorities to appeals against decisions which are alleged to infringe Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). Mei Ling Huang and Ali Kashmiri had both sought leave to remain in the UK. Neither qualified under the Immigration Rules. Both claimed that the Home Secretary’s refusal of leave was unlawful by being incompatible with their right to respect for their family life under Art 8 of the Convention. The decision concerned the legal treatment of these cases, and involved no further exploration of the facts.
The importance for immigration cases is in clarifying the role of those who decide immigration appeals—since April 2005, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal—as that of a decision maker rather than a mere reviewing body. However, the decision also
