LADY MARGARET ROAD LEGAL CENTRE
10, HILLSIDE ROAD
SOUTHALL MIDDLESEX UB1 2PD

JUST BEFORE TESCO EXPRESS OPPOSITE SOUTHALL TYRES WITH ON STREET PARKING
0208 575 0061 OPEN TILL 8PM (

CONTACT US BY EMAIL AT BOTTOM OF PAGE
BRENT CROSS GARDENS LEGAL CENTRE
UNIT 5 THE EXCHANGE BRENT CROSS GARDENS
NW4 3RJ (ALSO OPEN WEEKENDS)

RIGHT BEHIND BRENT CROSS SHOPPING CENTRE

0208 575 0061 OPEN TILL 8PM

Our advice is completely free and you do not have any obligation to go ahead. We charge fixed fees for work. 
                                                                                               ​                      0203 489 1800 or 07596 872 677                                                    Monday to Friday 11.00am-5.30pm                                                         Our friendly support staff are here 

In this issue Bobby Madan discusses an area of Immigration Law which many have conflicting views on. Is it Reasonable to expect a child to leave the UK?

Section 117B (6) of the 2002 Act helpfully states that in respect of parents that;

(6) In the case of a person who is not liable for deportation, the public interest does not require the person's removal where-

a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and
b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom. The cases of Ruiz Zambrano and ZH Tanzania state that it is unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. The case becomes more difficult where the child is not British but has lived in the UK for seven years or more years and then the considerations as to best interests of the child as protected by the UNCRC and section 55 BCIA 2009 will be relevant, again as discussed.

Insurmountable obstacles
The insurmountable obstacles test that appears in rules at EX.1 originates in some very early domestic case law on Article 8.

In the case of Boultif v Switzerland (2001) ECHR 497 did not refer to insurmountable obstacles in a lawful residence case but rather assessed matters by balancing all relevant circumstances such as length of residence, the nationalities of the various persons concerned, whether there was real and genuine family life established taking into account the length of the relationship, whether there were children involved and their age; overall all it was the degree of difficulty rather than the 'surmountability' of the obstacles that should be the focus in a case where the migrant had been lawfully resident. Insurmountable obstacles is now defined in the rules as meaning;

'very significant difficulties which would be faced by the applicant or their partner in continuing their family life together outside the UK and which could not be overcome or would entail very serious hardship for the applicant or their partner.

In making a case of Insurmountable obstacles there would be various factors we would look at including;

Pregnancy- the expectant mother's health and the conditions for birth abroad, including family and medical support.

Relationships with family and friends in the United Kingdom particularly where there are questions of dependency.

The best interests of any children, whether of the immediate family unit or others with whom children who might face relocation would..

Ability of the partner lawfully resident in the UK to enter and reside in proposed country of relocation

Cultural barriers leading to social isolation and discrimination.

Mental or Physical disability

The security situation including whether the Sponsor has was granted leave to remain based on protection needs, and whether those remain current.

We hope this article gives an indication of what is mean't by Insurmountable obstacles. If you have a case like this feel free to contact our Southall solicitors on Lady Margaret road on 0208 575 0061.

Source: Mastering Immigration Law Fifteenth Edition

15/12/17
oe qou
 PLANS TO CUT HOUSING BENEFIT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
ARE THEY AN ASSAULT ON THE YOUNG AND VULNERABLE?
 
The July 2015 budget proposed by the government has revealed plans to end automatic housing benefit for under 21s which has amounted to housing charities declaring this as an ‘assault on young people’. The government’s plans run a huge risk of increasing homelessness among 18-21 year olds as removing young people’s automatic ability to claim housing benefit will create a hit-and-miss system. What’s more, there is major concern for those young people who are classed as vulnerable who may have left home due to issues such as domestic violence or child abuse.

However, a government spokesperson has stated, ‘The changes ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home – and there would be safeguards for vulnerable people’. Although, independent research commissioned by Centrepoint makes clear that the measures will fail to save the taxpayer any money as young people facing homelessness will be forced to turn to local councils for help instead.

For the vast majority of young people, housing benefit is a lifeline not a lifestyle.

What are your views on cutting housing benefit for the young?

Will it prove as an incentive for young people to work or will it hit the most vulnerable the hardest?


Published by Sukhdeep Dhillon