Third Party Support; Interpretation Of Huang

Article by Lee Jackson, Barrister, Mitre House Chambers.

Originally published by Gherson and Company on www.gherson.com

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) has decided in AM (3rd party support not permitted R281 (v)) Ethiopia [2007] UKAIT 00058 that applicants for entry clearance (a visa) cannot rely upon third party support to satisfy the maintenance requirements of the Immigration Rules unless the Rules expressly state that they may do so. The AIT also considered the House of Lords' judgment on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life, in Huang and Kashmiri and concluded that it made no difference to the outcome of any human rights claims based upon an alleged breach of the right to respect for family and private life.

Third Party Support

'Third party support' is the expression used to describe the situation where the sponsor and the applicant may not have sufficient means to maintain themselves adequately without recourse to public funds (State benefits provided to people in need), but a third party (usually a relative) is prepared to provide sufficient additional financial support to enable them to do so.

The issue of whether third party support can be taken into account in deciding whether an applicant satisfies the maintenance requirements of the Immigration Rules is a long-running one. It was thought that the matter had been resolved by the decision in Arman Ali in 1999, in which the High Court found that the Immigration Rules would not comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for family and private life, if they were interpreted to exclude a family member from the United Kingdom in circumstances where long-term third party support was available and where their admission would not affect the economic well-being of the UK because there would be no recourse to public funds or any other detriment.

The Home Office did not appeal the decision in Arman Ali. However, it appeared to signal its disagreement with the judgment by almost immediately publishing new policy instructions indicating that spouses were required to support themselves from their own resources, and by changing the Rules relating to the admission of children, restricting their support to the parent(s) or relative sponsoring the child.

The Home Office changes gave rise to considerable confusion. Notwithstanding this, many...