AA (Somalia) — Supreme Court says home secretary should amend the refugee family reunion rule for children
The Supreme Court has strongly indicated to the home secretary in its judgment in AA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 81 that she should amend the immigration rules concerning family reunion of children with refugees in the UK.
The court held that it could not itself rewrite the rules to achieve a fair result and so had to dismiss the appeal. But Lord Carnwath, in giving the judgment of the court, said: ‘In the interests of both applicants and those administering the system, it seems much preferable that the rules should be amended to bring them into line with the practice actually operated by the secretary of state, including that dictated by her obligations under international law.’
The case concerned an application by a child for entry clearance to come to the UK to join her de facto ‘adoptive’ parents, one of whom was a recognised refugee…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?