FLR FP appeal

Could everybody please have a look the following scenario and suggest according to…. Mrs Y entered in the UK with student visa in May 2006, few months later her husband Mr X joined her. They have a daughter Miss R, was born in August 2007. After Miss R’s 7th birthday they applied for FLR FP on the ground “you have a child in the UK who is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for 7 years and it wouldn't be in their best interests to leave the UK with you”. The application was made end of August 2014 and after three months they received the refusal. Now they intend to appeal against the decision. Could you please suggest what documents or evidence do they need to submit for the appeal? Attn: Solicitors and OISC advisers in the group, could you please suggest?

Child is not British though and neither are the either of parents.

@wanderer OP stated

or has lived in the UK for 7 years

@kasiano, if out search the forum there are quite a few recent posts re 7 year child concession applications. Search for user shone Rasharkin as first one that comes to mind.

The difficulty is that at present, children who were born here and lived here for 7 years since their birth, are having difficulty in succeeding in comparison to children who came her at about 4-5 and lived here for 7 years.

The common views shared by the courts are , if a child enter a state at 4-5 years, by the time 7 years has elapsed, they would have entered secondary, and developed a much stronger link with the community, such that it will be unreasonable to expect them to leave with their parents, as opposed to children who have only resided all their life in the Uk for 7 years.

The view is that those children would have only recently formed a connection with people other than their immediate family members, and therefore it will be reasonable to expect them to leave.

New judgement regarding a Child born here and has lived here for 7 years. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 4-ukut-517

The judgement really takes Home Office decision making to task in respect of children and is a welcome shifting of the balance. For too long Home Office decision making has been cursory and dismissive of children’s best interests, but this is not acceptable to McCloskey J.

A very helpful case on its face- and includes the basis to allow the appeal because the Home Office have not discharged their duties under s55, rather than just accept the pathetic decision making and have an immigration judge fix it for them