Overview
The Court of Appeal decision in IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516 provides important clarification on the scope of “family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of adult siblings. The Court reaffirmed that adult siblings cannot establish family life for the purposes of Article 8(1) without demonstrating additional elements of dependency that go beyond normal emotional ties.
The case concerned a Palestinian family of six living in Gaza who sought to join a British sponsor in the UK. Although the family has since been granted entry clearance, the appeal proceeded due to the wider public importance of the legal issues raised. The Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal, overturning the Upper Tribunal’s decision that had previously been in the family’s favour.
Background
The applicants were a family of six (two parents and four children) living in Gaza. They applied in September 2024 to join the sponsor, who was the British brother of the father. Their application was refused in May 2024, and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed their appeal.
The FTT accepted that family life did exist between the sponsor and the applicants but concluded that refusal of entry clearance was not a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.
The family appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which found that the FTT had made an error of law and proceeded to remake the decision, allowing the appeal.
Permission to appeal was later granted to the Home Secretary by the Court of Appeal. Although the Home Secretary had already agreed, subject to conditions, to grant the family entry clearance, the appeal was pursued due to the points of general importance raised. The Court confirmed that the outcome of the appeal would not affect the family’s position, as costs had already been agreed and entry clearance granted.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Home Secretary appealed on three grounds:
(1) Whether Family Life Existed Between Adult Siblings
The family argued that family life existed because the sponsor had provided “real, committed and effective support” to his brother and the brother’s family. However, the Court of Appeal rejected this approach and reaffirmed the established position from both European and domestic authorities that:
“Family life for the purpose of Article 8 is normally limited to the core family and there will be no family life between parents and adult children or adult siblings unless they can demonstrate additional elements of dependence, involving more than normal emotional ties.”
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on authorities including:
- Kumari v The Netherlands (2024)
- Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39
Applying this test, the Court concluded that no qualifying family life existed between the British sponsor and the applicants for the purposes of Article 8(1).
(2) Whether the Upper Tribunal Gave Improper Weight to the Family’s Article 8 Rights
Although this ground was academic in light of the first finding, the Court addressed it due to its wider importance. The Court accepted that under Beoku-Betts, where family life exists, the rights of all relevant family members must be considered.
However, the Court emphasised that in entry clearance cases, the main focus must be on the sponsor in the UK, not on the extended rights of family members overseas. The Court stressed that:
- The UK is not under a positive obligation to admit every member of a person’s wider family.
- Article 8 rights under the Convention are primarily engaged by the person within the jurisdiction, namely the sponsor.
The Court concluded that the Upper Tribunal had placed too much emphasis on the Article 8 rights of the family outside the UK, and this ground would have been partly upheld if the appeal had not already succeeded on the first ground.
(3) Whether the Refusal Was a Disproportionate Interference with Article 8
This ground was also treated as academic but was nevertheless fully examined. The Court found that the Upper Tribunal had made several errors in its proportionality assessment.
The Court held that:
- Too little weight should have been given to the family life said to exist.
- The sponsor and the family had not cohabited after the Gaza conflict began.
- The core family unit would remain together even if entry clearance were refused.
- The family relationship had been rekindled in full knowledge that there was no right of entry to the UK.
- The sponsor would not be joining the family in Gaza if entry clearance was refused.
Most significantly, the Court held that the Upper Tribunal had given too much weight to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including the risk of death or serious injury to the children. The Home Secretary successfully argued that the UK:
“is simply not responsible for the risks faced by persons in a foreign war zone.”
The Court emphasised that the absence of any resettlement scheme for Gaza was a critical factor. Without such a policy, the tribunal could only override immigration control in “very exceptional or compelling circumstances”, which the Court held did not exist in this case.
Why This Case Matters
This decision strongly reasserts the high threshold required for adult siblings to establish family life under Article 8. Emotional ties and financial or practical support, without more, will generally be insufficient unless additional dependency can be demonstrated.
The case also confirms that humanitarian crises abroad, even of the most severe nature, do not in themselves impose a positive obligation on the UK to admit family members outside the Immigration Rules, particularly in the absence of a dedicated resettlement scheme.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
For immigration practitioners, this case provides several key reminders:
- Adult sibling cases will face significant difficulty under Article 8 unless clear dependency beyond emotional ties can be established.
- The primary Article 8 focus in entry clearance cases remains on the UK-based sponsor, not on the overseas family members.
- Severe humanitarian conditions abroad, including active war zones, will not ordinarily displace the public interest in immigration control.
- The absence of a specific resettlement policy will weigh heavily against applicants seeking to rely on Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules.
The case also highlights the limits of judicial intervention where government policy does not provide a route for admission.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision in IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516 confirms that Article 8 family life between adult siblings will only arise in truly exceptional circumstances involving dependency beyond normal emotional ties. It also reinforces the principle that the UK is not responsible under Article 8 for protecting individuals from risks arising in foreign conflict zones in the absence of an applicable resettlement scheme.
While the family in this case has ultimately been granted entry clearance, the legal outcome significantly strengthens the Home Secretary’s position in future adult sibling and humanitarian entry clearance cases.
By:Emmanuel Oqbu