In AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing gave judgment on 31 March 2026 saying she would dismiss a Congolese national's appeal against refusal of her asylum, article 3 health and article 8 claims.
Key facts
- Who: People resisting removal who rely on article 3 (health) or article 8 (private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and those advising them
- From: Judgment of 31 March 2026
- Source: AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 370
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment on 31 March 2026 in AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 370, on appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The appeal was heard on 5 February 2026, with written submissions on 12 March 2026. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing wrote that she would dismiss the appeal.
Background
AL, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), came to the UK in February 2020 with six months' leave to enter as a visitor. She claimed asylum within two months of arriving and is still here. The Secretary of State refused her asylum and other claims. Her health later deteriorated, and she resisted removal on article 3 and article 8 grounds as well as on asylum grounds.
The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed her appeal. It held that she had arrived for a temporary purpose but never intended to leave, and that her protection claim was not genuine. It also dismissed her article 3 health claim and her article 8 claim. The Upper Tribunal found no error of law. AL appealed to the Court of Appeal with permission from Phillips LJ.
The question
AL argued that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to take into account three factors relevant to whether removal would cause her "intense suffering" and so breach article 3:
- the effect of removal from her family carers in the UK, particularly her daughter
- the effect of the removal process itself
- the impact on her dignity of being cared for in the DRC by male relatives
Before the Court of Appeal she argued that the Upper Tribunal erred in law in holding that she had not raised, or put evidence before the First-tier Tribunal about, the impact on her health of being separated from her family in the UK. Her second ground was that the Upper Tribunal erred in upholding the First-tier Tribunal's approach to article 8.
The reasoning
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing said she would dismiss the appeal. In short, she gave two reasons. The Upper Tribunal was correct that AL did not put her article 3 claim to the First-tier Tribunal as she now puts it. And the Upper Tribunal did not err in law in upholding the First-tier Tribunal's approach to article 8.
The judgment records findings made by the First-tier Tribunal. It was not satisfied that AL and the witnesses had been entirely candid about family circumstances in the DRC, and it was satisfied that AL and her children in the UK had contact with family there. It found that she had family in the DRC who could meet her at the airport and assist her. It also found that she had a mental disability so great that she lacked capacity and could not live independently, and it treated her as a vulnerable adult.
What this means for people facing removal on health or family-life grounds
In this judgment, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing considered how AL's article 3 claim had been put to the First-tier Tribunal and concluded that it had not been put as AL later argued. She also found no error of law in the approach to AL's article 8 claim. Anyone relying on article 3 or article 8 should get advice before any appeal deadline passes.
Sources
- AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 370, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 31 March 2026