It has long been the case that a child born in the United Kingdom who has lived here continuously for at least seven years can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on the basis that their private life is engaged under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Once that child secures ILR, it has been regular practice for their parents to make linked applications for leave to remain on the strength of the child’s established life in this country. For many years, these applications were routinely granted, reflecting the strong weight given to a child’s integration and the disruption that removal would cause.
Legal Framework
The legal framework underpinning these applications is clear and long-established. Under the Immigration Rules, specifically Appendix Private Life (which replaced the former paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv)), a child under the age of 18 who has lived continuously in the UK for at least seven years may qualify for settlement where it would not be reasonable to expect them to leave the UK. This rule gives effect to the UK’s obligations under Article 8 ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. In addition, section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a statutory duty on the Home Office to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK when making immigration decisions.
The best interests of the child must be treated as a primary consideration. In practice, this has meant that decision-makers are required to carry out an individualised assessment of the child’s integration into UK society, including their schooling, friendships, language, cultural ties, and the likely impact of relocation rather than applying a blanket approach based solely on the parents’ immigration status.
Why Applications Are Being Refused – and How We Handle It
In recent months, however, we have received a number of decisions that are causing real concern. Applications for child ILR that would previously have succeeded are now being refused. The Home Office is citing the fact that the parents themselves do not have leave to remain and concluding that it is therefore “reasonable” to expect the child to leave the UK with them. Despite the child having been born here and having known no other home for seven years or more, the refusal letters are effectively treating the parents’ immigration status as decisive. We have already lodged appeals in several of these cases and are preparing more.
These appeals will require a robust evidential bundle. We must demonstrate both the child’s deep integration into life in the United Kingdom and the very real impact that relocation would have. This means presenting clear subjective evidence, school reports, letters from teachers, evidence of friendships, extracurricular activities, medical records, and anything else that shows how firmly the child is rooted here alongside objective evidence. Potentially independent social work or psychological reports addressing the emotional and developmental consequences of a sudden change in environment, language barriers, and disruption to education are now essential. The Home Office is no longer prepared to accept the child’s seven years of residence at face value; we have to prove why departure would be unreasonable in the specific circumstances of the case.
This shift makes it more important than ever that families seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity. A comprehensive, well-prepared application can still succeed, but it must be put together with care and with full awareness that the matter may have to proceed to appeal. Attempting these applications without proper legal representation risks missing critical evidence or arguments that could make the difference between success and refusal.
My Thoughts – Why We Believe This Approach Is Unlawful
We believe the current approach being taken by the Home Office is unreasonable. The vast majority of children who qualify under this route have parents who are overstayers or whose own leave has expired. That has always been the reality of these cases. It is difficult to see how the parents’ circumstances can be used to disengage the child’s fundamental rights under Article 8. The child’s private life, their schooling, their friendships, their sense of belonging to the only country they have ever known exists independently of the parents’ immigration history. To treat the two as automatically interchangeable overlooks the individual assessment that both Article 8 and section 55 of the 2009 Act require.
If your child was born in the UK and has now lived here for seven years or longer, we strongly recommend that you obtain legal advice before making any application. The landscape has changed, and the stakes are high. A well-evidenced case, prepared with the possibility of an appeal in mind, remains the best way forward.
Early instruction of a solicitor can make a significant difference both to the quality of the initial application and to your position if the matter has to go before the Tribunal.