As immigration advisors, we frequently encounter clients who have children in the UK, and who would like to apply for a visa to remain, on the basis of that parental relationship. As a result, we often encounter clients who have a family law application, such as custody arrangements, and who at the same time need to submit their immigration application.
It is therefore frequent to see someone who has two applications outstanding at the same time.
It has been reported on extensively, that the family court is suffering from a heavy caseload, and an extreme backlog. Statistics published by the Government on 26/03/2026, show that in 2025, there were 270,474 new cases alone that started in family courts in 2025.
Given these delays, and the unknown of when a decision will be made, is it fair for the Home Office to delay making a decision on the immigration parent application, until custody arrangements have been finalised?
How can the Home Office make a decision on whether a parent needs to remain in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a child, when the family court hasn’t yet decided if the parent should have access to the child?
What happens when your immigration application is decided first?
These were all points raised in the Court of Appeal case of Jakir Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 509.
Background
Mr. Ahmed, the appellant, married a British national and subsequently regularised his immigration status. He was granted leave from March 2020 until February 2023.
In June 2020, Mr. Ahmed and his partner welcomed their child, a daughter. Unfortunately, his relationship with his wife broke down and the couple separated in August 2021.
The following timeline begins:
- July 2022: Mr. Ahmed submits an application to the family courts for a child arrangement order
- December 2022: He submitted an application to the Home Office for leave to remain as a parent of a British child
The application was refused on the basis that Mr. Ahmed had failed to provide evidence that he had direct access to his child or that he was taking an active role in the child’s upbringing.
He appealed the refusal.
First-tier Tribunal appeal
At the time of the appeal hearing in 2024, the family matter was still outstanding. The main issue before the First-Tier Tribunal was whether Mr. Ahmed should be permitted leave based on his Article 8 ECHR rights, at least until the custody application had been decided.
However, the Judge held that he had no such right and dismissed the appeal.
This was concluded on the basis that the Judge found that Mr. Ahmed had only initiated family law proceedings ‘to delay or frustrate the immigration process and not to promote the child’s welfare’. This was supported by the fact that Mr. Ahmed had not had any direct contact with his child since he left the family home three years prior, and had shown little interest in obtaining such contact, and that he had in fact lacked commitment to progressing the family court application.
In essence, the Judge found that Mr. Ahmed had submitted his family law application so that it would ‘look’ like he was interested in maintaining a relationship with his child for the purposes of the immigration application, but that his actions showed differently.
Mr. Ahmed appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal concluded that there was no error with the first court’s decision and dismissed his appeal.
Mr. Ahmed challenged this to the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal
On 16/04/2026, the Court of Appeal hearing was held.
In a unanimous decision dated 28/04/2026, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that there was no error in the First-Tier Tribunal’s approach.
This confirmed that there is no right to remain in the UK under Article 8 until conclusion of the family court proceedings,
Lord Justice Lewis at paragraph 57 of the judgment explains that there are two ends of the spectrum:
“At one end of the spectrum, there may well be cases where the father is a foreign national criminal liable to deportation or has an adverse immigration but has had (and has continued to have) contact with the child, and where there is evidence of a real bond between them or that the child is missing or suffering from the lack of contact with the father. At the other end, there may be cases where there has been little or no contact, and none of the evidence points in either direction as to whether or not future contact is in the child’s best interests or which might point to contact not being in the child’s best interests.”
Key takeaways
This case highlights that ‘appearing’ to have a relationship with a child is not sufficient to be granted leave to remain on the basis of that parental relationship. Instead, you must demonstrate that you have an active and ongoing relationship.
Having a custody order is not a requirement to be granted leave as a parent, however, for those that feel such an order is necessary in your circumstances, you must be able to demonstrate that you are committed to the process, and ultimately, committed to your child.
If you have a child in the UK who is:
- British or
- Has indefinite leave to remain or
- Leave to remain under Appendix EU
- Has lived in the UK for at least 7 years
and are interested in exploring your visa options, please contact us on 0208 995 3556 and speak to one of our immigration advisors.
By: Abigail Gledhill