The Court of Appeal has restated the approach to a leave-to-remain appeal when a parent also has a contact application in the family court, affecting people facing both sets of proceedings.
Key facts
- Who: People appealing a refusal of leave to remain, removal or deportation while family court proceedings about a child are also under way.
- From: 28 April 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Jakir Ahmed v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 509
In Jakir Ahmed v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 509, handed down on 28 April 2026, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Baker, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Justice Lewis) considered how the First-tier Tribunal should approach an immigration appeal when family court proceedings are running at the same time. Lord Justice Lewis gave the judgment.
Background
Mr Ahmed first came to the UK with leave to enter and remain until 2 October 2006 and stayed unlawfully for about 16 years. He then married a British national and was granted leave to remain until 6 February 2023. A child was born in June 2020. The couple separated in August 2021. In July 2022 he applied to the family court for a child arrangements order, which could provide for contact with his daughter.
In December 2022 he applied for leave to remain as the parent of a British-national child. The Home Secretary refused, saying he had not provided evidence of direct access to the child or an active role in her upbringing, and had not shown that refusal would breach his right to respect for family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The question
The central issue was how the First-tier Tribunal should decide an appeal when family proceedings are running at the same time, and in particular whether an appellant is entitled to remain at least until those proceedings end.
The First-tier Tribunal found he had no such right. It believed the family proceedings had been brought to delay or frustrate the immigration process rather than to promote the child's welfare. It pointed to the absence of direct contact in the three years since he left the family home and to a lack of commitment to the family case. The Upper Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 19 February 2025.
The Court's approach
The Court set out the current position. The approach in the Upper Tribunal's earlier decision in RS, endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Mohan [2012] EWCA Civ 1363, applies generally where there is an appeal against a decision that may lead to removal or deportation, or against refusal of leave to remain, and family court proceedings also exist. It is not limited to cases involving criminal offending or an adverse immigration history, although these may be relevant factors.
The tribunal has to decide whether the individual has at least a right under Article 8 to remain until the family court proceedings conclude. If so, it should decide whether to allow the appeal, leaving the Home Secretary to grant limited leave for that purpose, or to adjourn the tribunal proceedings so the relevant decisions can be taken in the family court. The Court rejected the argument that allowing the appeal is the primary option with adjournment as a fallback.
What this means for people with immigration appeals and family court cases running together
- The judgment applies to appeals against refusal of leave to remain, removal or deportation where family court proceedings exist, not only to cases involving criminal offending or an adverse immigration history.
- The question for the tribunal is whether there is at least an Article 8 right to remain until the family proceedings conclude. Allowing the appeal and adjourning are two ways of dealing with that, and neither ranks above the other.
Sources
- Jakir Ahmed v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 509, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 28 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/509