Background

The case Jakir Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 509 involved a father who had applied for a Family Court Order permitting contact with his British daughter, shortly before applying for permission to stay in the UK on the basis of that relationship. Success in such an application requires at least direct access to the child, as well as evidence of taking an active role in the child’s upbringing, and an intention to continue doing so. His immigration application was refused on the basis that he didn’t meet those requirements, and the refusal was appealed. The family proceedings had not concluded at the time of the immigration appeal. A key issue was therefore whether he had a right to remain in the UK under Article 8 ECHR, pending the conclusion of the family proceedings.

The First-Tier Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, finding that Mr Ahmed had no such right to remain. His subsequent appeal to the Upper Tribunal was also dismissed. Mr Ahmed appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Judgment and outcome

The Court of Appeal also dismissed Mr Ahmed’s appeal, in a unanimous judgment. It emphasised that in cases where there are concurrent immigration and family proceedings and a decision must be made about which takes priority, the factors set out in RS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKUT 218 (IAC) apply.

These include:

  • whether the outcome of the family proceedings is likely to be material to the immigration decision;
  • whether there are compelling public interest reasons to exclude the individual irrespective of the outcome of the family proceedings; and
  • where contact proceedings are instigated in an immigration appeal, whether there is reason to believe they have been instituted to delay removal rather than to promote the child’s welfare.

Immigration judges are therefore required to engage with the question of the child’s welfare – though they must not prejudge the decision on that issue, which remains for the Family Court.  

In assessing the questions above, a judge will usually want to consider the degree of the claimant’s previous interest in/contact with the child; the timing of contact proceedings and the commitment with which they have been progressed; when a decision is likely to be reached; and what materials are or can be made available to identify pointers as to where the child’s welfare lies.

In Mr Ahmed’s case, it was found that he had little interest in contact with the child (having had no direct contact for over 3 years), and that he was not committed to the family court proceedings, which were being used to delay the immigration process. The CA noted that there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that the welfare of the child pointed to the renewal of direct contact, and that if anything, it pointed against direct contact. Mr Ahmed therefore did not have a right to remain in the UK on the basis of Article 8 ECHR, pending conclusion of the family proceedings.

Key takeaways

The case provides a helpful reminder that family proceedings may well be relevant to an individual’s ability to remain lawfully in the UK, but they will not in and of themselves be sufficient to secure status. Each case will turn on its specific facts and will require careful preparation, including potentially coordination with the Family Court for disclosure of relevant material.

It also provides helpful clarification that the principles set out in RS will apply to concurrent immigration and family proceedings, even where there is no immediate question of removal or deportation (as had been the case in RS itself).   

Family practitioners should take note that where a client’s immigration status is not secure, their ability to remain in the UK while family proceedings run their course should not be assumed. Immigration advice should be taken as early as possible so that both aspects can be managed in a coordinated way.

The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice on which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please contact the Bates Wells team if you require further information.