R (On the Application Of Osawemwenze) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1564 (Admin)
14 May 2014
Queen’s Bench Division,
Andrew Thomas QC
(1) By this application, the Claimant, a 44 year old national of
(2) The Claimant had arrived in the
(3) It was argued that as a parent of a child under 18 who had continuously been in the
(4) At the hearing, two grounds were pursued:
(5) The Claimant had lost all ties with
(6) Alternatively, due to the Claimant’s family responsibilities towards his children, he should have been granted leave to remain outside of the rules.
(7) HELD: The burden was on the Claimant to show that there were obstacles to relocation, and the Court considered that there was no evidence that the Claimant had lost all ties to
(8) In relation to ground (b), the Court had to consider whether the Claimant had shown that there were exceptional reasons why removal might be a disproportionate interference. The Court noted that there was no reason that the two youngest children could not relocate to
(9) Applying section 55 made clear that the safety of the Claimant’s eldest child had to be of primary consideration. However, that did not necessarily require the family to be given the right to remain in the
(10) The Claimant’s eldest child’s welfare had been correctly treated as a primary concern. Nonetheless, it was reasonable to expect the family to relocate to
(11) The Court found that the Defendant had given full and proper consideration of the Claimant’s Article 8 rights, including those rights of his family. The refusal of the Claimant’s application did not amount to a disproportionate interference with the Claimant’s rights, nor those of his family.
(12) The claim for judicial review was thus dismissed.
 – No evidence lost ties.
 – Full consideration.
 – Primary concern.
 – Family ties.
 – Conclusion.