New research briefing focuses on role of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in immigration decisions
The House of Commons Library last week published a helpful new research briefing examining how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) affects immigration decisions and appeals in the UK.
Image credit: WikipediaYou can download the 28-page briefing here or you can read a full copy of the briefing online below.
It provides an in-depth overview of the Convention's origins, how it is applied through domestic law, and the ways in which its key provisions, particularly Articles 3 and 8, intersect with immigration control and enforcement.
As the House of Commons Library report explains, the ECHR was incorporated into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998, allowing people affected by immigration decisions, such as visa refusals or deportation orders, to raise human rights arguments before UK courts and tribunals.
Much of the report focuses on how Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention have developed through European and domestic case law. Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and in immigration cases it prevents removal where the individual would face such treatment abroad. Article 8 protects the right to family and private life and often underpins appeals where removal would interfere disproportionately with an individual's family ties or established life in the UK.
The House of Commons Library briefing discusses how these rights are reflected in the UK's immigration rules and how courts have interpreted them. It highlights the "balancing exercise" carried out by immigration judges when determining whether removal would breach Article 8, taking account of factors such as the strength of family relationships, time spent in the UK, and criminal offending.
According to figures in the briefing, around 61,000 appeals based on ECHR rights succeeded in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) from 2015 to 2024, which represents a success rate of around 53%. ECHR challenges in deportation cases involving criminal offenders, however, had a much lower success rate of 3% between 2015 and 2021.
Finally, the briefing reviews recent and proposed government measures to limit the ECHR's role in immigration law. It notes that Government's May 2025 immigration White Paper promised new legislation to address concerns about how Article 8 operates in practice. Proposed measures include strengthening the public interest test, clarifying how Article 8 should apply across immigration routes and defining when a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The Conservatives have said they will leave the ECHR, as has Reform.
House of Commons
Library
Research Briefing
27 October 2025
By CJ McKinney, Melanie Gower, Joanna Dawson
Summary
1 Introduction to the ECHR
2 Development of ECHR immigration rights
3 Current rules applied in the UK
4 Measures to limit the ECHR's role in immigration cases
commonslibrary.parliament.uk
Number 10376
Image credit
European Court of Human Rights by Heather. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped.
Disclaimer
The Commons Library does not intend the information in our research publications and briefings to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. We have published it to support the work of MPs. You should not rely upon it as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute for it. We do not accept any liability whatsoever for any errors, omissions or misstatements contained herein. You should consult a suitably qualified professional if you require specific advice or information. Read our briefing 'Legal help: where to go and how to pay' for further information about sources of legal advice and help. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
Sources and subscriptions for MPs and staff
We try to use sources in our research that everyone can access, but sometimes only information that exists behind a paywall or via a subscription is available. We provide access to many online subscriptions to MPs and parliamentary staff, please contact hoclibraryonline@parliament.uk or visit commonslibrary.parliament.uk/resources for more information.
Feedback
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated to reflect subsequent changes.
If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. Please note that authors are not always able to engage in discussions with members of the public who express opinions about the content of our research, although we will carefully consider and correct any factual errors.
You can read our feedback and complaints policy and our editorial policy at commonslibrary.parliament.uk. If you have general questions about the work of the House of Commons email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.
Contents
Summary … 4
1 Introduction to the ECHR … 6
1.1 Origins and provisions … 6
1.2 The European Court of Human Rights … 7
1.3 Incorporation into UK law … 8
2 Development of ECHR immigration rights … 9
2.1 European Court case law … 10
2.2 UK case law … 13
3 Current rules applied in the UK … 15
3.1 Article 8 protection of family life … 15
3.2 Article 8 protection of private life … 20
3.3 Article 3 … 21
3.4 How many ECHR appeals succeed? … 22
4 Measures to limit the ECHR's role in immigration cases … 24
4.1 Under the 2010-2015 coalition government … 24
4.2 Potential forthcoming changes … 27
Some migrants whom the government wants to remove or exclude from the UK can secure residence rights by relying on the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR, an international treaty.
The ECHR forms part of UK law but is interpreted by a European court
Unlike other human rights treaties, the ECHR has a court to rule on whether governments are compliant. The UK agreed to let people take cases to the European Court of Human Rights in the 1960s.
In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 made the ECHR part of UK domestic law. People can appeal against government immigration decisions, such as a family visa refusal or deportation for criminal offending, before an immigration judge in the UK if there is a human rights angle.
The 1998 act also requires the UK courts to "take into account" the case law of the European Court. As a result, the precedents set by the court in Strasbourg affect UK immigration law even if the UK is not involved in the case.
Article 3 and Article 8 of the ECHR can be used to contest immigration decisions
Under the European Court's "living instrument" doctrine, its interpretation of ECHR rights can change over time. In the 1980s, the court began to rule that migrants could invoke Article 8 and Article 3 of the ECHR.
Article 8 protects the right to family and private life. Article 8 does not give families a right to choose their country of residence, but it may require someone to be granted residence rights depending on the individual circumstances. These circumstances, such as the strength of the family's ties in the country of residence and the obstacles to living together abroad, have to be balanced against the state's interest in immigration enforcement to see whether the person's removal would comply with Article 8.
Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. If someone would experience treatment reaching this threshold, as interpreted by the court, they cannot be removed under any circumstances.
Article 8 cases involve balancing the public interest with individual circumstances
ECHR rights are reflected in the UK's immigration rules and appeals system. This means that people can be granted residence rights based on ECHR considerations where they would not otherwise qualify (for example, if they had been living here without authorisation).
The immigration rules on Article 8 family life include allowing people to stay if there would be insurmountable obstacles to a couple living together outside the UK or if there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences for the family.
Separate rules on Article 8 private life cover scenarios where people have been living in the UK without authorisation as children or for many years.
People whose Article 8 claim is denied by the Home Office can appeal to the immigration tribunal in the UK. The judge will weigh up the public interest in immigration control against the person's family or private life, taking a wide range of factors into account, to decide whether removal is proportionate. This is known as the "balancing exercise" or "balance sheet" approach.
In cases where the person has committed a criminal offence, legislation passed in 2014 has raised the bar for an appeal to succeed, although British judges still retain some discretion to block deportation in compelling cases.
From 2015 to 2024, around 61,000 ECHR appeals were successful in the first-tier immigration tribunal. Recent media coverage has highlighted appeals by criminals specifically, although successful challenges based solely on the ECHR represent around 3% of completed deportations for criminal offending.
The Labour government wants to reinforce previous attempts to limit ECHR rights
Under Theresa May, the Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016, the government changed the immigration rules and passed primary legislation aiming at limiting discretion in Article 8 cases. The courts have sought to demonstrate respect for this aim while upholding their role in adjudicating on what constitutes a breach of ECHR rights in individual cases.
Since taking office, the Prime Minister and several Cabinet ministers have said that they believe too many ECHR cases are successful despite not being truly exceptional. An internal government review is underway and an immigration white paper has promised legislation on Article 8.
The Conservative and Reform parties say they would leave the ECHR.
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty. It is unusually influential, having both a court in Strasbourg issuing decisions that are binding under international law and being part of domestic UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998.
In 1949, 10 western European countries including the UK established the Council of Europe. Separate from what would become the European Union, the organisation's role under its founding charter includes the "maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms". [1]
Over the years, Council of Europe members have agreed more than 200 treaties and additional protocols, on subjects ranging from blood-grouping reagents to cybercrime. [2] But the oldest extant agreement is the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, more commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights or ECHR. [3]
A British politician, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (later Lord Kilmuir), played a prominent role in drafting the convention and has been described as one of its two "founding fathers". [4] But the British government of the day sought to ensure that the ECHR system would not affect its internal affairs in any way. [5]
The UK nevertheless ratified the ECHR in 1951 and has since been followed by almost every country in Europe. [6] In doing so, they accepted international legal obligations to guarantee certain civil and political rights to people within their jurisdictions.
The specific rights are listed in articles 2 to 18 of the ECHR, and in some separate protocols added later. They include the right to life; the right to be free from torture and inhuman/degrading treatment; the right to liberty; and the right to respect for private and family life.
While the rights themselves are briefly stated in the text, they have been interpreted as placing significant obligations on governments. For example, the right to life under Article 2 does not just mean that the government cannot kill its citizens, but has to take "reasonable measures to ensure the safety of individuals in public places". [7]
The European Court of Human Rights is ultimately responsible for interpreting the convention rights. The UK announced in 1965 that it would allow its citizens to take individual complaints to the Strasbourg court. [8] This would turn out to be a significant step, although at the time it was assumed that the court's decisions would have little influence on domestic law. [9]
1.2 The European Court of Human Rights
In 1959, the Council of Europe set up the European Court of Human Rights. Based in Strasbourg, France, it rules on alleged violations of ECHR rights by countries that have ratified it. Countries can take cases against one another, but most rulings involve individuals bringing a case against their government.
Article 46 of the ECHR requires governments to implement final judgments of the court. Those written judgments make up the court's case law, which has fleshed out the meaning of the ECHR rights. Under the court's 'living instrument' doctrine, that meaning can change over time, as judges interpret the rights in the light of present-day conditions unforeseen by the original drafters. [10] This has been politically controversial.
Other important principles for how the court approaches cases are "effectiveness" and "subsidiarity":
• Effectiveness means ensuring that ECHR rights are not just protected in theory but are "practical and effective" safeguards. [11]
• Subsidiarity means that governments have the primary duty to protect ECHR rights and the court has a secondary, supervisory role. States have some leeway, known as the margin of appreciation, to decide how to implement ECHR protections within their jurisdictions.
There are 46 judges on the European Court of Human Rights, one from each member country. Under Article 22 of the ECHR, each country nominates three candidates and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly elects one of them for a nine-year term. In June 2025, the assembly voted overwhelmingly to choose Hugh Mercer KC as the new UK judge. [12]
International treaties, including the ECHR, do not form part of domestic law in the UK unless expressly incorporated. This meant that judgments against the UK by the European Court of Human Rights were binding on the government in international law but could not be enforced in a domestic court.
The Blair government's policy was to incorporate the ECHR, allowing people take human rights cases to UK courts (as well as ultimately to Strasbourg). [13] This commitment to "bring rights home" was implemented in the Human Rights Act 1998.
The act came fully into force on 1 October 2000. In the immigration context, the crucial provision is section 6, which makes it "unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right".
Public authorities are defined to include not only government departments such as the Home Office but also courts and tribunals. [14]
In addition, the UK courts "must take into account" relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. [15] This means that while Strasbourg case law is highly persuasive in practice for senior British judges, they can decide not to follow it in certain circumstances. [16] But if major differences were to grow up between UK human rights law and the version endorsed by the European court, the UK would be at greater risk of losing cases taken to Strasbourg.
Migrants can appeal to an immigration judge on the ground that "to remove the person from or require him to leave the United Kingdom or to refuse him entry" would be unlawful under section 6 the 1998 act. [17] If the appeal is granted, the person is allowed to remain in the UK despite the objections of the Home Office (the government department responsible for immigration).
A human rights appeal is often the only way for a person being removed or deported from the UK to bring a legal challenge to that decision, unless they have refugee or EU Settlement Scheme status. [18] If there is no human rights angle – for example, in most cases about refusal of visitor visas – there is no right of appeal.
2 Development of ECHR immigration rights
Unlike the European Union's treaties and laws, the ECHR does not require visa-free access for citizens of other countries. The text says almost nothing about immigration. [19] "It is well documented that migration was not in the minds of the drafters of the Convention", as one academic work observes. [20]
But, over time, some ECHR rights have been successfully invoked as a constraint on governments' immigration decisions. This has been made possible by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which have established the principle that ECHR rights take precedence over immigration laws in certain situations. Those decisions, as well as major judgments of the UK courts, can be relied upon in appeals at the immigration tribunal.
Article 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The main ECHR rights relevant to immigration are articles 3 and 8. The European Court has detailed guides to how it interprets both articles. [21]
For decades after the European Court of Human Rights was established, cases by migrants were systematically ruled inadmissible. [22] Eventually, however, the court began to "read Convention rights in such a way as to effectively provide protection to non-nationals who seek to enter into, and not be deported from, a foreign country". [23]
Article 8: Right to private and family life
In the 1985 case of Abdulaziz v United Kingdom, the European Court established that enforcement of domestic immigration rules could, in principle, breach Article 8. [24] While the court went on to find that Article 8 was not breached in the situation it was considering, the UK's spouse visa laws were found to violate Article 14 because they discriminated against male partners. In response, the Thatcher government changed the rules so that they applied equally to men and women. [25]
By the early 1990s, the court had found various governments in breach of Article 8 in immigration cases. [26] Although the state has a legitimate interest in controlling access to its territory, enforcing immigration regulations and deporting foreign offenders, this now had to be balanced against the person's family and personal ties. In certain cases, depending on the situation, it would be disproportionate to enforce immigration rules.
Lady Hale of Richmond, then a senior British judge, gave the following overview of the European case law in 2004:
Article 8 cases in the immigration and expulsion context tend to be of two different types. Most commonly, the person to be expelled has established a family life in the contracting state. His expulsion will be an interference, not only with his own right to respect for his private and family life, but also with that of the other members of his core family group: his spouse (or perhaps partner) and his children. The Strasbourg court regards its task as to examine whether the contracting state has struck a fair balance between the interference and the legitimate aim pursued by the expulsion. The reason for the expulsion and the degree of interference, including any alternative means of preserving family ties, will be explored and compared.
Sometimes, the reason for expulsion will be immigration control, which is a legitimate aim 'in the interests of the economic well-being of the country' […] Sometimes, the legitimate aim will be 'the prevention of disorder or crime'.
[The quotes are from Article 8 itself.] This has arisen in a long line of cases concerning people who have lived in the contracting state since childhood but remain liable to expulsion if they commit serious crimes. […]
The other type of… [A]rticle 8 case arises where there is no question of expulsion but immigration control prevents other close family members joining a spouse or parents living in the contracting state. [27]
The court has published a guide to its case law on immigration under various headings. [28] Key cases include:
• Üner v Netherlands, 2006: gives guidelines on how to assess whether someone's deportation for criminal offending will be compatible with Article 8. These relevant criteria include the seriousness of the offence; length of residence; time since offending; how difficult it would be for the family to live abroad; and the best interests of any children. [29]
• Maslov v Austria, 2008: emphasises that the weight to be attached to the criteria outlined in Üner "will inevitably vary according to the specific circumstances of each case". It also holds that if the person being deported has spent all or most of their life in the country, there would need to be "very serious reasons" for expulsion to be justified. [30]
• Jeunesse v Netherlands, 2014: addresses the situation of people living in a country without authorisation but who have committed no crime. Article 8 does not give families a right to choose their country of residence, but it may require the person to be allowed to stay depending on the individual circumstances. Relevant factors include the family's ties to the country of residence; whether there would be "insurmountable obstacles" to living together abroad; and whether family life was created at a time when one of the family had precarious immigration status. [31]
• M.A. v Denmark, 2018: summarises the court's principles on when a state is obliged by Article 8 to grant entry visas for family members. Again, it depends on the situation: "the extent of a State's obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest, and is subject to a fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests involved". [32]
Article 3: Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Unlike Article 8, which is a qualified right which has to be balanced against the state's interest in enforcing immigration laws, Article 3 is absolute. States are not entitled under any circumstances to subject people to treatment that comes within the European Court's interpretation of torture, inhuman or degrading.
In the 1989 case of Soering v United Kingdom, the court confirmed for the first time that sending a person to another country where they would face a real risk of such treatment would itself violate Article 3. [33] The absolute nature of Article 3 protection was confirmed in the 1996 case of Chahal v United Kingdom: "the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration" in whether they can be removed from the country. [34]
A leading academic book on immigration law has commented that "as with all ECHR rights, the scope of Article 3 protection has developed over time, the Convention being a living instrument". [35] This is illustrated by the case law on when removing seriously ill people from the country will breach Article 3:
• In D v United Kingdom (1997), the European Court found that deporting a cocaine smuggler in the advanced stages of terminal and incurable AIDs would breach Article 3. He was not guaranteed a hospital bed in St Kitts and there was a serious danger that removal would "further reduce his already limited life expectancy and subject him to acute mental and physical suffering". [36]
• In N v United Kingdom (2008), the court noted that the D v UK decision involved "very exceptional circumstances". Since that decision nine years previously, it had "never found a proposed removal of an alien from a Contracting State to give rise to a violation of Article 3 on grounds of the applicant's ill health". But it did not rule out there being "other very exceptional cases where the humanitarian considerations are equally compelling". [37]
• In Paposhvili v Belgium (2016), the court moved away from its previous insistence that Article 3 only applied in cases "where the person facing expulsion is close to death". Instead, it said that very exceptional cases could include situations where the person is not at imminent risk of dying if removed but "would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy". This is a less restrictive formulation than the D v UK test. [38]
• In Savran v Denmark (2021), the court confirmed that people can rely on the Paposhvili test to argue against removal if they have a mental illness, not just a physical illness. [39]
The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000. Importantly, migrants contesting immigration decisions on human rights grounds were also given a right of appeal to the immigration tribunal. [40]
As previously mentioned, the 1998 act requires UK courts to take judgments of the European Court into account when deciding how the ECHR works in the UK. [41] The Supreme Court has said that it will usually follow a "clear and constant line" of precedents from the Strasbourg court, unless it thinks there is something seriously wrong with the decisions. [42]
Article 8
The UK courts have become more ready to use Article 8 to overturn immigration decisions since the mid-2000s:
the fact that Article 8 could be a basis for resisting removal or deportation in domestic law was recognised in the key cases of Razgar and Ullah [both 2004].
[…]
Before 2007, the domestic courts took a conservative approach to Article 8. A key feature of the pre-2007 period was what amounted to a general presumption that in the absence of 'insurmountable obstacles' to family life being enjoyed outside of the UK, exclusion or removal of a family member would not breach Article 8, nor would a decision made in accordance with the Immigration Rules unless there were truly exceptional circumstances. In 2007, the House of Lords judgment in Huang marked a turning point. [43]
In the Huang case, the House of Lords (in its capacity as the equivalent of today's Supreme Court) said that cases did not have to be exceptional for an Article 8 case to succeed. It also held that immigration judges deciding human rights appeals must decide for themselves whether someone's Article 8 rights mean they should be allowed to live in the UK, rather than just reviewing the Home Office's decision for major flaws. [44]
Huang was followed by a number of other significant judgments. For example, in EB (Kosovo), the House of Lords emphasised Article 8 cases are all about the specific personal circumstances in individual cases:
it will rarely be proportionate to uphold an order for removal of a spouse if there is a close and genuine bond with the other spouse and that spouse cannot reasonably be expected to follow the removed spouse to the country of removal, or if the effect of the order is to sever a genuine and subsisting relationship between parent and child. But cases will not ordinarily raise such stark choices, and there is in general no alternative to making a careful and informed evaluation of the facts of the particular case. The search for a hard-edged or bright-line rule to be applied to the generality of cases is incompatible with the difficult evaluative exercise which article 8 requires. [45]
In 2014, under the coalition government, Parliament passed legislation on how judges should approach Article 8 appeals (see section 4 below). [46] This has, in turn, been the subject of extensive litigation, particularly in relation to foreign national offenders. [47]
Article 8 arguments can be used by people who have been refused a visa to join family in the UK (not just those facing removal from the UK as existing residents). [48] The Supreme Court decision in MM (Lebanon) led to extra flexibility in the minimum income rules for family visa sponsors. [49]
Article 3
UK Supreme Court cases on Article 3 rights in the immigration context include:
• EM (Eritrea), in which the court held that asylum seekers could raise Article 3 arguments against removal to EU countries. [50]
• AM (Zimbabwe), in which the court outlined the UK's new responsibilities towards seriously ill migrants after the Paposhvili case. [51]
• AAA (Syria), in which the court found the policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, although not only because of Article 3. [52]
3 Current rules applied in the UK
People in the UK without permission, or who are facing deportation for a criminal offence, may be able to contest their removal based on Article 8 or Article 3. Their chances of success will depend on the individual circumstances and evidence available. If successful, the person will be given permission to live in the UK, although usually on terms that mean they are unable to secure permanent residence for 10 years (or never). [53]
3.1 Article 8 protection of family life
The immigration rules allow British citizens and permanent residents to sponsor immediate family (spouse/partner and children under 18) to live in the UK. Normally the sponsor must be earning the equivalent of £29,000 a year and the visa applicant must be in the UK legally or applying from outside the UK. [54]
However, the rules allow for exceptions to comply with Article 8:
• The applicant's child has British citizenship or seven years' residence, and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. [55]
• The applicant's partner has British citizenship or permanent residence and there are insurmountable obstacles to living together outside the UK. [56]
• There are exceptional circumstances which mean that refusal of the visa would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant's partner, child or another family member. [57]
In such cases, the person can be granted residence rights despite being in the UK illegally or the sponsor not meeting the financial requirement.
The Home Office is responsible for assessing whether someone meets these exceptions in the first instance. Its family life guidance outlines its interpretation of "reasonable to expect", "insurmountable obstacles", "exceptional circumstances" and "unjustifiably harsh consequences". [58]
If the Home Office does not accept that an Article 8 exception applies and turns the application down, the person can appeal to an immigration judge for full reconsideration. The job of the judge is to decide whether it is proportionate to refuse the person's application, weighing up the public interest in enforcing the immigration rules against the family's interest in living in the UK together. This is sometimes referred to as the "balancing exercise" or "balance sheet" approach. [59]
Under legislation passed in 2014, there are some mandatory factors for judges to put into the balancing exercise. For example, people being unable to speak English or support themselves financially counts against them, as does being in the UK illegally when they met their partner or had their child. [60]
But judges take other factors into account as well. [61] These include the extent to which family life would be ruptured by the decision; the extent of the family's ties in the UK; the obstacles to living together abroad; and the best interests of any children. [62]
Appeal courts have repeatedly stressed that judges should not routinely allow people to stay in the UK despite not meeting the immigration rules set by the government, which has constitutional responsibility for immigration policy. [63] There is no right for someone in the UK unlawfully or on a temporary visa to be granted residence rights "simply because they enter into a relationship with a British citizen during their unlawful or temporary stay". [64]
The family is also expected to provide evidence of the alleged effects on their life, not just assert that they would be negative. [65] This might include reports from a social worker or country expert; letters from a school or GP; and a formal witness statement from the person themselves. [66]
Case study: An unsuccessful Article 8 claim
Eugene Johnson, a Jamaican citizen, came to the UK on a visitor visa in 2000 and overstayed. In 2003, she married a British citizen and applied for permission to remain in the UK, which the Home Office refused. She stayed illegally and applied again in 2019. This application was also refused and she appealed.
Ms Johnson argued that there were insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing in Jamaica. Her husband having to leave the UK would lead to the loss of his pension, separation from his child and grandchildren, and difficulty adjusting to a new country at the age of 62. But the judge found that the husband could secure his pension by remaining in the UK for two or three more years, and then relocate to join his wife in Jamaica. These obstacles did not outweigh the strong public interest in enforcing the immigration rules in a situation where Ms Johnson was in "flagrant breach" by overstaying for 18 years. The appeal did not succeed. [67]
Case study: A successful Article 8 claim
Oluseye Olamide Akinrinmade, a Nigerian citizen, came to the UK on a visitor visa in 2020 and began a relationship with a British woman. He overstayed his visa until 2023, when he applied for permission to remain. The Home Office refused the application and Mr Akinrinmade appealed.
The judge noted that Mr Akinrinmade's British partner provided "essential personal care to her 89-year-old mother", who had Alzheimer's and vision problems and did not trust outside carers. The Home Office's suggestion that the mother accompany the couple to Nigeria was "unrealistic" given her condition. In the circumstances, requiring the British partner to leave her mother behind would cause her "very serious hardship", which is one of the Article 8 exceptions in the immigration rules. The appeal succeeded. [68]
Foreign national offenders
People who have committed criminal offences are still able to contest deportation based on the right to family life. The crime, even if serious, is "just one factor which has to be weighed in the balance", according to the European Court. [69]
The more serious the criminal offence, the greater the public interest in deportation going ahead. [70] UK legislation sets different legal tests for family life appeals against deportation depending on sentence length: [71]
1. if the person has been sentenced to four years or more in prison, they will be deported unless there are "very compelling circumstances"
2. if the person has been sentenced to between one and four years' imprisonment, they will be deported unless:
– they have a British or long-term resident partner or child and the effect of deportation on that person would be "unduly harsh", or
– there are "very compelling circumstances".
The second test also applies if the person has never received a single sentence of one year or more but they are a persistent offender or have caused serious harm. [72]
Unlike in Article 8 cases involving non-criminals, there is no additional flexibility for judges outside the terms of the legislation. If the judge concludes that there is nothing unduly harsh about deportation, and/or no very compelling circumstances, the family life claim must be denied. [73]
The meaning of these concepts has been extensively picked over in the courts. In 2022, the Supreme Court agreed that "unduly harsh" means something very bleak or severe:
… 'unduly harsh' does not equate with uncomfortable, inconvenient, undesirable or merely difficult. Rather, it poses a considerably more elevated threshold. 'Harsh' in this context, denotes something severe, or bleak. It is the antithesis of pleasant or comfortable. Furthermore, the addition of the adverb 'unduly' raises an already elevated standard still higher. [74]
In relation to very compelling circumstances:
Although there is no 'exceptionality' requirement, it inexorably follows from the statutory scheme that the cases in which circumstances are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the high public interest in deportation will be rare. The commonplace incidents of family life, such as ageing parents in poor health or the natural love between parents and children, will not be sufficient. [75]
In addition to the exceptions to deportation based on Article 8 family life, there is an exception based on Article 8 private life (see section 3.2 below).
Applications for entry to the UK
Although the typical Article 8 family life case involves people already in the UK resisting removal, it can also be relied upon to argue against the refusal of a family visa to someone not currently in the UK. As in other Article 8 appeals, whether or not someone qualifies depends on the facts of the case:
There is no general obligation to respect a married couple's choice of country in which to reside or to authorise family reunification. It will depend upon the particular circumstances of the persons concerned and the general interest. [76]
Similarly, although the core scenario of Article 8 family life involves immediate family (couples and children under 18), it is possible for other family members such as adult children or siblings to rely on Article 8 depending on the circumstances. [77] For example, the Palestinian family granted entry to the UK in January 2025 in a politically controversial decision were the parents and siblings of a British citizen. [78]
The European Court of Human Rights has also said that the visa regime for the family members of refugees should be "more favourable than that foreseen for other aliens". [79]
Case study: A successful Article 8 claim for a visa
Sahar Abdelfatah Gader Ibrahim, a Sudanese citizen, left Sudan during the ongoing civil war and was living without authorisation in Saudi Arabia. Her husband and five children, all British citizens, lived in the UK. Her husband was not working but said this was because of childcare responsibilities; as a result, he was not able to meet the financial requirements to sponsor a family visa. The Home Office refused the visa application and Ms Ibrahim appealed.
The Upper Tribunal found that "no rational tribunal would have resolved the article 8 balancing test against the appellant, given the unchallenged findings about the impact of separation on the appellant's British family, the best interests of the two youngest children, the inability of the family to continue their family life anywhere outside the United Kingdom, and the lack of any countervailing factor other than the family's inability to meet the financial requirement, which the [judge] had specifically found was likely to be remedied by [Ms Ibrahim's] presence in the UK". The appeal succeeded. [80]
3.2 Article 8 protection of private life
Someone who does not have family in the UK may nevertheless have a case based on private life, which Article 8 separately protects.
The European Court of Human Rights has said that the concept of private life is extremely broad and impossible to define, but it includes "the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings". [81] For example, if someone has grown up in a country of which they are not a citizen for most of their life, the private life they have developed would make it disproportionate to remove them unless there are "very serious reasons". [82]
The immigration rules contain various provisions designed to recognise the right to private life in the UK:
• A child born in the UK without British citizenship can apply for settlement if they have been continuously resident for at least seven years and it is not reasonable to expect them to leave. [83]
• A child born outside the UK and now living here without authorisation can apply for residence rights if they have been continuously resident for at least seven years and it is not reasonable to expect them to leave. [84]
• An adult aged between 18 and 25 who arrived in the UK as a child and is living here without authorisation can apply for residence rights if they have lived here for at least half their life overall. [85]
• An adult of any age living in the UK without authorisation can apply for residence rights if they have lived here for 20 years, or if there would be very significant obstacles to integration if they had to leave. [86]
As with family life, people resisting removal may be able to appeal to an immigration judge on the basis of private life if the Home Office rejects their claim to stay on that basis.
For those facing deportation for criminal offences, the legislation includes an exception catering for private life (in addition to the family life exceptions discussed above). [87]
Article 3 prohibits the removal of a person from the UK if there is a "real risk" of the person suffering torture, inhuman treatment or degrading treatment in the destination country. This covers extradition, deportation and administrative removal. [88]
Asylum seekers
In the UK, people who argue that their removal would expose them to such treatment usually claim asylum. Asylum claims (and appeals) are based on the UN Refugee Convention rather than Article 3. [89] The asylum system is the primary mechanism for dealing with cases that might otherwise be covered by Article 3.
Article 3 can, however, cover situations that the asylum rules do not, as noted in a leading legal textbook:
There are important respects in which the protection provided by Article 3 ECHR is considerably broader in its application than the Refugee Convention, thus acting as a 'safety net'. […]. There is no need to show that the harm feared is for reasons of the applicant's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion as it is under the Refugee Convention. The harm feared need not have the character of 'persecution', or even be attributable to any aggressive action. [90]
In addition, people can be refused asylum on national security grounds or for criminal offending. No such exceptions are allowed under Article 3; its protection is absolute if there is a real risk of sufficiently severe ill-treatment. This means that an asylum seeker whom the government would otherwise be entitled to deport might be able to contest removal based on the ECHR. [91]
Case study: A successful Article 3 claim
TS, an Albanian citizen, was facing deportation from the UK following an 18-month sentence for forced labour in a cannabis factory. He appealed under the Refugee Convention, Article 8 and Article 3.
The Refugee Convention element of the appeal failed: the judge did not accept that there was a well-founded fear of persecution arising from a blood feud with a rival family. But there was a separate risk from the criminal gang which had forced TS to work in the cannabis factory over unpaid debt. The judge found that "there is a real risk that they will seek repayment of the debt from [TS] or through his family if he is returned to Albania" and that the police in Albania would not provide sufficient protection. The appeal succeeded on this Article 3 argument, as well on a separate Article 8 argument.
Article 3 medical cases
An important application of Article 3 in the immigration context involves people with serious medical conditions.
The European Court has held that it would be a breach of Article 3 to remove someone who is seriously ill to another country if lack of access to medical treatment there would mean "intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy". [92] Medical treatment does not count as accessible if the technology does not exist in that country or if the person would not be able to afford it. [93]
High-profile medical cases have involved people with HIV/AIDS. In 2022, the Upper Tribunal rejected a long-running appeal by an HIV-positive Zimbabwean man whose criminal convictions in the UK included a nine-year sentence for drugs and firearms offences. While personal conduct is irrelevant to an Article 3 case, the tribunal found that effective HIV treatment was now available and affordable in Zimbabwe, so the Article 3 claim failed. [94]
3.4 How many ECHR appeals succeed?
From 2015/16 to 2024/25, immigration judges granted 61,000 out of the 115,000 human rights appeals brought against the Home Office (53%). [95] A minority of these cases are appealed to a higher tribunal or court, but the statistics do not show which side was successful.
For foreign national offenders, the success rate for migrants appears to be lower. While the government does not routinely publish data on appeals against deportation for criminal offending, some internal data has come to light:
• From August 2018 to October 2019, the Home Office 'win rate' in ECHR appeals against criminal deportation ranged between 65% and 75%. [96]
• From 2015/16 to 2020/21, the Home Office win rate in all First-tier Tribunal appeals against criminal deportation was 70% (5,900 out of 8,400). Of the appeals won by the person contesting deportation, around 1,000 were successful on ECHR grounds only, although some of the other 1,500 appeals won by migrants may have been a mix of ECHR and non-ECHR reasons. [97]
In the same 2015/16 to 2020/21 period, the Home Office removed 31,400 foreign national offenders from the UK. [98] The 1,000 foreign criminals able to block deportation on ECHR grounds alone represent 3% of that figure.
Media coverage in 2025
Judgments of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) are published online. A number of ECHR decisions have been the subject of critical newspaper coverage in recent months. [99]
For example, in February 2025, the Telegraph reported that "an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets". [100] The man concerned had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment after being found with €300,000 in cash, the proceeds of crime. But he had a British wife and two children in the UK, so appealed against deportation on the basis of Article 8 family life.
The appeal proceedings focused on whether deportation would be "unduly harsh" (see section 3.1 above) on the younger child, C, who had additional needs. The First-tier Tribunal found that it would be and allowed the appeal.
But the Upper Tribunal found that none of the evidence cited by the lower tribunal supported the conclusion that deportation would be unduly harsh, except for the finding that "C will not eat the type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad", which was nowhere near enough by itself. It sent the case back for a new hearing before a different judge. [101]
The Oxford University Bonavero Institute has argued that the chicken nuggets story, and others like it, give a misleading impression of the importance of particular details in the judgment and of the actual outcome of the appeal. [102]
4 Measures to limit the ECHR's role in immigration cases
The UK Government and Parliament have tried to restrict the extent to which ECHR rights create exceptions to the normal immigration rules. These restrictions do not bar people from challenging immigration decisions using the ECHR, but do try to ensure that successful cases are exceptional.
The Labour government has said it feels too many ECHR immigration cases are succeeding and is considering further measures to tighten the UK's rules while remaining part of the convention. By contrast, the Conservative and Reform opposition parties have said the UK needs to leave the ECHR in order to maximise freedom of action in enforcing immigration control.
4.1 Under the 2010–2015 coalition government
The 2012 immigration rules
In the early 2010s, there was frequent media coverage of cases in which foreign national offenders (in particular) had avoided deportation. [103] The Home Secretary at the time, Theresa May, told the 2011 Conservative Party conference about a Bolivian overstayer who won an Article 8 appeal because he had a pet cat (the cat was a relevant detail in the lower tribunal ruling but irrelevant to the higher tribunal's decision). [104]
Following a consultation process, the Home Office issued new immigration rules to cover Article 8 cases in 2012. [105] The intention was to cover all Article 8 considerations within the rules, so that judges would not usually need to make case-by-case decisions on whether removal was proportionate:
With the changes that I am making, there will generally be no need for a separate assessment of article 8 beyond the requirements set out in the immigration rules. Compliance with the immigration rules will mean compliance with article 8, other than in truly exceptional circumstances. So, a foreign criminal who does not meet the criteria set out in the rules will be deported and they will not have a second bite at the cherry via article 8. Similarly, a migrant seeking to come to the UK to join a partner must meet the criteria set out in the rules or a visa will be refused and there will be no separate article 8 claim. The immigration rules will no longer be a mere starting point, with leave granted outside the rules or appeals allowed under article 8 for those who do not meet them. [106]
The new immigration rules were, unusually, debated by MPs. The government felt that this would give them more constitutional legitimacy when considered by the courts. [107] A motion supporting the government's changes to the immigration rules was carried without a division.
But the Upper Tribunal concluded that immigration rules could not displace judges' statutory obligations to base decisions on Article 8 proper:
The procedure adopted in relation to the introduction of the new Rules provided a weak form of Parliamentary scrutiny; Parliament has not altered the legal duty of the judge determining appeals to decide on proportionality for himself or herself. [108]
This led Theresa May to conclude that primary legislation on Article 8 was necessary. [109]
The Immigration Act 2014
The Immigration Act 2014 contains two sets of provisions on Article 8: [110]
• A list of considerations that judges must take into account in all Article 8 appeals when deciding whether removal is proportionate (for example, little weight should be given to relationships formed when the person was in the UK unlawfully).
• An additional list of considerations for cases involving the deportation of foreign criminals.
Theresa May told MPs that this was because changing the immigration rules alone had not worked:
The Government have taken a simple position on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which is that our judiciary have not been interpreting it in the way we believe it should be interpreted, because it is a qualified right in the European convention itself. Having changed the immigration rules, and that not having had the effect we desired, we are now putting it into primary legislation and ensuring that we clarify absolutely what the qualified interpretation of article 8 should be in relation to the Government's ability to remove people from the United Kingdom. [111]
A legal textbook has commented that "the tension between that political intention and the correct legal approach identified in Huang – namely that human rights matters are for judges to determine for themselves – has unsurprisingly characterised the case law on these provisions". [112]
In relation to non-criminal cases, the courts have tried to resolve this tension by noting that the mandatory considerations in the 2014 act are not the only considerations in an Article 8 case: "there is in principle no limit to the factors which might, in a given case, be relevant to an evaluation under Article 8". [113] Similarly, the Supreme Court has said that the legislation has to be interpreted to allow a little flexibility in individual cases: it "cannot put decision-makers in a strait-jacket which constrains them to determine claims under article 8 inconsistently with the article itself". [114]
In criminal deportation cases, the courts have also concluded that judges are ultimately required to take a wide range of issues into account when deciding what counts as "very compelling circumstances". [115]
Immigration lawyer Nick Nason has written that the changes since 2012 have not removed judicial discretion in relation to ECHR appeals, but have made them harder for deportees to win:
While the Secretary of State hasn't necessarily succeeded in restricting the issues which can count in favour of an appellant's Article 8 rights, she has succeeded in raising the bar as to what will outweigh the public interest in deportation.
The way the rules, and now primary legislation, have been drafted, means that there is now essentially a presumption that where a person has been sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment and cannot fit within an exception, deportation will take place, unless very compelling circumstances can be shown that it should not.
This is an important difference from the pre-2012 regime, where judges arguably approached – or were supposed to approach – the question from a more neutral position, in the form of a proportionality assessment. [116]
There have not been major legislative changes in this area since the 2014 act.
4.2 Potential forthcoming changes
Since taking office in July 2024, the Labour government has expressed concern about the effect of ECHR rights on immigration control. The adverse media coverage of individual tribunal cases (see page 23 above) may form part of the context.
In June 2025, the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that "the proportion of decisions being taken as 'exceptional', often under interpretations around the ECHR and particularly article 8, ends up being around 30%. Well, that is not exceptional; that is a much broader proportion". [117]
Shabana Mahmood, then the Justice Secretary and now Home Secretary, and Attorney General Lord Hermer made similar comments to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. [118] The Prime Minister told the BBC in October 2025 that the government was reviewing the implementation of both Article 3 and Article 8, as well as other international law, in the immigration and asylum context. [119]
The May 2025 immigration white paper canvassed the Article 8 concerns and promised legislation to address them:
… we will bring forward legislation to:
• strengthen the public interest test to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country's borders and take back control over who comes to, and stays in the UK, striking the right balance between individual family rights and the wider public interest
• clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as "exceptional", and
• set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances. [120]
The Conservative and Reform parties have both promised to leave the ECHR altogether. [121] The Shadow Attorney General's legal advice on the Conservative policy has been published. [122]
____________________________________________________
The House of Commons Library is a research and information service based in the UK Parliament. Our impartial analysis, statistical research and resources help MPs and their staff scrutinise legislation, develop policy, and support constituents.
Our published material is available to everyone on commonslibrary.parliament.uk.
Get our latest research delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe or scan the code below:
commonslibrary.parliament.uk
@commonslibrary
(End)
[1] Council of Europe, Statute of the Council of Europe, ETS No. 1, 5 May 1949, Article 1; see generally Commons Library briefing CBP-8061, What is the Council of Europe?, 27 July 2017
[2] Council of Europe, Complete list of the Council of Europe's treaties, accessed on 30 June 2025
[3] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No. 5, 4 November 1950. Two of the Council's internal statutes, ETS No. 1 and No. 2, are older.
[4] Ed Bates, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2010, p75
[5] As above, pp77/78
[6] Council of Europe, Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005, accessed on 30 June 2025
[7] Ciechońska v Poland, application no. 19776/04, 14 June 2011
[8] HC Deb 7 December 1965 vol 722 c235
[9] Ed Bates, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2010, p12
[10] Tyrer v United Kingdom, application no. 5856/72, 25 April 1978, paragraph 31
[11] Soering v United Kingdom, application no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989
[12] Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights for the United Kingdom (PDF), 24 June 2025
[13] Home Office, Rights brought home: the Human Rights Bill, Cm 3782, 24 October 1997
[14] Human Rights Act 1998, section 6
[15] Human Rights Act 1998, section 2
[16] Harrison et al, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 11th edition, 2025, section 7.6
[17] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 82(1)(b) and section 113
[18] Commons Library briefing, Immigration appeal rights, 17 June 2025
[19] Article 5(1)(f) permits deprivation of liberty for deportation or to prevent unauthorised entry. The fourth protocol does have some rights explicitly for migrants, but the UK has not ratified it.
[20] Çalı et al, Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights, 2021, p11
[21] European Court of Human Rights, All Case-Law Guides, accessed on 22 October 2025
[22] As above, p20
[23] Matilda Gillis, A Defence of the Human Rights Act 1998 (2024) Public Law 463, at 467
[24] Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom, application nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81, 28 May 1985, paragraph 60
[25] HC Deb 23 July 1980 vol 83 cc893-959
[26] Berrehab v The Netherlands, application no. 10730/84, 21 June 1988; Moustaquim v Belgium, application no. 12313/86, 18 February 1991; Beldjoudi v France, application no. 12083/86, 26 March 1992
[27] R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27, 17 June 2004, paragraphs 44, 45 and 51
[28] European Court of Human Rights, Guide on the case-law of the European Convention on Human Rights: Immigration (PDF), 28 February 2025
[29] Üner v The Netherlands, application no. 46410/99, 18 October 2006, paragraphs 57 and 58. This built on, in particular, Boultif v Switzerland, application no. 54273/00, 2 August 2001.
[30] Maslov v Austria, application no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008, paragraphs 70 and 75. For a case in which someone born and raised in the country was deported with no breach of Article 8, see Kaya v Germany, application no. 31753/02, 28 June 2007.
[31] Jeunesse v The Netherlands, application no. 12738/10, 3 October 2014, paragraphs 106 to 109
[32] M.A. v Denmark, application no. 6697/18, 9 July 2021, paragraphs 130 to 135
[33] Soering v The United Kingdom, application no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989
[34] Chahal v The United Kingdom, application no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996, paragraphs 79 and 80
[35] Harrison et al, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 11th edition, 2025, section 7.25
[36] D v The United Kingdom, application no. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, paragraph 52
[37] N v The United Kingdom, application no. 26565/05, 27 May 2008, paragraphs 34, 42 and 45
[38] Paposhvili v Belgium, application no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016, paragraph 183
[39] Savran v Denmark, application no. 57467/15, 7 December 2021, paragraphs 137-139. That mental illness could raise Article 3 issues was accepted in principle in Bensaid v The United Kingdom, application no. 44599/98, 6 February 2001
[40] Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 65 (in force from 2 October 2000)
[41] Human Rights Act 1998, section 2
[42] Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6, 9 February 2011, paragraph 48
[43] Harrison et al, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 11th edition, 2025, sections 7.75 and 7.76
[44] Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, 21 March 2007, paragraphs 11- 13
[45] EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41, 25 June 2008, paragraph 12
[46] Immigration Act 2014, section 19
[47] For example, HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22, 20 July 2022
[48] For example, the politically controversial 2025 Upper Tribunal decision involving a family in Gaza: IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, 13 January 2025
[49] MM (Lebanon) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 10, 22 February 2017
[50] EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, 19 February 2014
[51] AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, 29 April 2020
[52] AAA (Syria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, 15 November 2023
[53] Home Office, Family life (as a partner or parent) and exceptional circumstances, version 23.0, 2 September 2025, p14; Discretionary leave, version 11.0, 30 May 2024, p19; Restricted leave, version 9.0, 22 August 2025, pp34-37
[54] Home Office, Immigration Rules Appendix FM: family members, accessed on 25 September 2025, paragraphs EC-P.1.1, E-ECP.3.1, E-LTRP.2.2(b) and E-LTPR.3.1
[55] As above, paragraph EX.1(a)
[56] As above, paragraph EX.1(b) and EX.2
[57] As above, paragraph GEN.3
[58] Home Office, Family life (as a partner or parent) and exceptional circumstances, version 23.0, 2 September 2025
[59] R (Agyarko and Ikuga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11, 22 February 2017, paragraph 50; TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109, 17 May 2018, paragraph 35
[60] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117B
[61] Arshad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 355, 28 March 2025, paragraph 120
[62] R (Agyarko and Ikuga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11, 22 February 2017, paragraph 42 and 43; Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60, 16 November 2016, paragraphs 28 and 29
[63] GM (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1630, 4 October 2019. paragraph 28
[64] TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109, 17 May 2018, paragraph 25
[65] GM (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1630, 4 October 2019. paragraph 31
[66] Lexis+ UK, Process for making an Article 8 claim, accessed on 23 September 2025
[67] Eugene Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, 27 Aug 2025
[68] Oluseye Olamide Akinrinmade v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, 21 March 2025
[69] Unuane v The United Kingdom (application no. 80343/17), 24 November 2020, paragraph 87
[70] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117C(2)
[71] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117C(5)-(6)
[72] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117D(2)(c)(ii)-(iii)
[73] CI (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 2027, 22 November 2019, paragraph 20
[74] HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22, 20 July 2022, paragraph 41
[75] As above, paragraph 50
[76] MM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State and another [2017] UKSC 10, 22 February 2017, paragraph 41
[77] Rai v Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi [2017] EWCA Civ 320, 28 April 2017, paragraphs 16-20
[78] IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, 13 January 2025; HC Deb 12 February 2025 cc248-251
[79] Tanda-Muzinga v France, application no. 2260/10, 10 July 2014, paragraph 75
[80] Ibrahim v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, 25 June 2025
[81] Blundell et al, The Law and Practice of Human Rights, 2025, section 13.159; Niemietz v Germany, application no. 13710/88, 16 December 1992, paragraph 29
[82] Maslov v Austria, application no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008, paragraph 75
[83] Home Office, Immigration Rules Appendix Private Life, accessed on 3 October 2025, paragraphs PL 13.1 to 13.3
[84] As above, paragraph PL 3.1
[85] As above, paragraph PL 4.1
[86] As above, paragraph PL 5.1
[87] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117C(4) – 'exception 1'
[88] Blundell et al, The Law and Practice of Human Rights, 2025, section 8.99
[89] Home Office, Immigration Rules part 11: asylum, accessed on 6 October 2025
[90] Harrison et al, Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 11th edition, 2025, section 7.36 (footnotes omitted)
[91] Free Movement, Briefing: Can criminals be denied refugee status?, 2 February 2024
[92] Paposhvili v Belgium, application no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016, paragraph 183
[93] Blundell et al, The Law and Practice of Human Rights, 2025, section 8.41
[94] AM (Art 3; health cases) Zimbabwe [2022] UKUT 131 (IAC), 13 May 2022; Free Movement, End of the AM (Zimbabwe) saga? Tribunal returns to Article 3 medical cases, 19 May 2022
[95] Ministry of Justice, Tribunals statistics quarterly: January to March 2025, 12 June 2025, table FIA_3
[96] Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, An inspection of the Home Office Presenting Officer function, 11 January 2021, paragraph 7.34 and figure 9
[97] Home Office, Statistical note: FNO appeals lodged and allowed on human rights grounds, 2008 to 2021, 24 February 2022
[98] Home Office, Returns detailed datasets, year ending June 2025, 21 August 2025, table Ret_D03
[99] Daily Mail, "Colombian career criminal with 12 convictions for 27 offences is 'too fragile' to be deported from the UK, judge rules"; 8 April 2025; Daily Telegraph, "Nigerian fraudster avoids deportation because he has two autistic children", 16 April 2025; Times, "Albanian wins deportation appeal after four attempts to enter UK illegally", 19 March 2025
[100] Telegraph, "Albanian criminal's deportation halted over son's distaste for chicken nuggets", 9 February 2025
[101] Disha v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, 27 January 2025
[102] Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate, 4 September 2025
[103] For example, BBC News, "Blackburn death crash driver will not be deported", 16 December 2010; Daily Mail, "A right to a family life? Rapist and killer among foreign criminals using Human Rights Act to fight deportation", 17 October 2011; Daily Telegraph, "Bigamist wins 'family life' human rights case", 21 January 2012; Telegraph, "Foreign criminals win 'family life' cases", 15 October 2011
[104] Politics.co.uk, "Theresa May speech in full", 4 October 2011; on the significance of the cat to the appeal, see BBC News, "The case of the cat deportation tale", 6 October 2011
[105] UK Visas and Immigration, Statement of changes to immigration rules, HC 194, 13 June 2012; Family and private life immigration rule changes 9 July 2012, 24 April 2014
[106] HC Deb 19 June 2012 cc762-764
[107] HC Deb 19 June 2012 c763: "Today's motion provides the courts with the statement and the endorsement from Parliament that they have said is needed. The courts should then give that statement from the elected legislature the weight that it deserves".
[108] Izuazu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 45 (IAC), 30 January 2013
[109] Daily Mail, "It's MY job to deport foreigners who commit serious crime - and I'll fight any judge who stands in my way, says Home Secretary", 17 February 2013
[110] Immigration Act 2014, section 19
[111] HC Deb 30 January 2014 c1050
[112] Blundell et al, The Law and Practice of Human Rights, 2025, section 13.165
[113] GM (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1630, 4 October 2019. paragraph 32
[114] Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 58, 14 November 2018, paragraph 49
[115] R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42, 14 June 2017
[116] Free Movement, Briefing: what is the law on deporting foreign criminals and their human rights?, 5 October 2023
[117] Home Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: The work of the Home Office, HC 505, 3 June 2025, Q50. It is not clear what the 30% figure refers to exactly.
[118] Constitution Committee, Uncorrected oral evidence: The rule of law, 3 June 2025, Q181; 10 June 2025, Q195
[119] BBC News, "PM tells BBC he wants to change how international law used in asylum cases", 1 October 2025
[120] HM Government, Restoring Control over the Immigration System, CP 1326, May 2025, paragraph 156
[121] Conservative Party press release, Conservatives Announce ECHR Exit Policy, 4 October 2025; Reform UK, Operation Restoring Justice (PDF), August 2025
[122] Conservative Party, The Wolfson Report, accessed on 9 October 2025