Things haven't improved any for the poor Secretary of State this week in respect of the new Immigration rules and article 8. In judgement Ogundimu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria  UKUT 00060 (IAC), President Blake finds that the introduction of the new Immigration Rules (HC 194) does not affect the circumstance that when considering Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention:-
“for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in [this] country very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion.”
The principles derived from Maslov v Austria  ECHR 546 are still to be applied.
He also found that Paragraph 399(a) of the Immigration Rules conflicts with the Secretary of State’s duties under Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Little weight should be attached to this Rule when consideration is being given to the assessment of proportionality under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.
And finally, that the natural and ordinary meaning of the word ‘ties’ in paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules, imports a concept involving something more than merely remote or abstract links to the country of proposed deportation or removal. It involves there being a connection to life in that country. Consideration of whether a person has ‘no ties’ to such a country must involve a rounded assessment of all of the relevant circumstances and is not to be limited to ‘social, cultural and family’ circumstances.
The Secretary of State can run from her international treaty obligations, but she can't hide.