Skip Content

Expulsion of Long Term Migrants

The AIRE Centre has acted (or assisted the representatives) in many cases concerning the expulsion of long term residents in stable genuine relationships with partners and children in the UK.  Many of these cases settle once they go to Strasbourg, having been strenuously fought in the national courts.

Omojudi v the United Kingdom (1820/08): The AIRE Centre represented the Applicant, who was removed from the UK, and separated from his wife and children, as a consequence of  the commission of  criminal offences.  The AIRE Centre argued that the Applicant’s removal was disproportionate and therefore violated the applicant’s right to respect for family life.  The Court found that the Applicant’s deportation had violated Article 8.  The Court placed particular emphasis on the fact that the UK authorities had relied on offences the Applicant had committed before he was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK, finding this unjustified. Sadly, Mr Omojudi died overseas  before the success of his case in Strasbourg was able to facilitate his return to his family.

Cardoso v UK (47061/99): The first Applicant, a Brazilian national, was in a long-term relationship with the second Applicant, a British national. The first Applicant was refused re-entry into the UK after travelling to Brazil. The Court granted an interim measure to suspend the first Applicant’s expulsion. The Applicants complained that expulsion would have a serious impact on the first Applicant’s health as he suffered from AIDS and that their separation would violate Articles 3 and 8. The AIRE Centre, working with Kamal Rahman at Mishcon de Reya secured a friendly settlement of this case.

J.N. and Others v the United Kingdom (58043/08): The AIRE Centre, working with Michelle Brewer and Kathryn Cronin (Counsel),  and Wesley Gryk Solicitors, reached a friendly settlement with the UK Government in this case on behalf of the Applicants.  It was argued that the removal of one of the Applicants (the mother) would interfere disproportionately with the right to respect for the family life of all of them (including father and child), particularly where the mother and father were both HIV-positive and the receiving country, Uganda, was one where HIV treatment was only available at great cost.  The case was settled and the mother was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

A.A. v the United Kingdom (8000/08): The Applicant in this case came to join his mother in the UK as a young child.  He committed a serious offence as a teenager for which he served a custodial sentence.  The Applicant became a model of youth-offender rehabilitation, a law abiding citizen and was a successful student.  He was granted indefinite leave to remain (permanent residence) in the UK.  He is, however, threatened with deportation because of the single offence he committed whilst a juvenile.   All of his family are resident in the UK.  The AIRE Centre is arguing  that this violates the his right to respect for family and private life under Article 8 of the Convention.  The case was communicated urgently to the Government by the Court in order to enable him to complete his studies. Judgment is pending.

Back to Top