Palestinian invokes ECHR ‘right to family life' to enter UK

Telegraph

2 days ago

A Palestinian woman has used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to access medical treatment in Britain, despite government objections.
The 69 year-old was allowed to enter the country to visit her daughter and receive private medical treatment for spinal and mental health conditions, after arguing that she had the right to a family life under article eight of the ECHR.
The decision was made by an immigration judge who rejected the Government's argument that it could open the floodgates to similar claims from other conflict zones.
The Home Office argued it could lead to a 'proliferation' of a 'very large number' of applications for medical treatment in the UK from people living in Gaza and other war zones.
It said this would 'undermine' immigration controls and put pressure on stretched public services in Britain.
However, an upper immigration tribunal ruled in the Palestinian woman's favour, because the Home Office's rejection of her visitor's visa 'interfered' with her right to a family life.
She claimed her daughter could not visit or meet her anywhere else.
The ruling will reignite demands for Britain to quit or reform the ECHR, which has been accused by senior Labour, Conservative and Reform UK politicians of undermining Britain's border controls.
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is proposing to curb the right of illegal migrants to use article eight to stay in the UK, by making it harder to claim their removal from the UK breaches their right to a family life.
A Home Office spokesman said the Government's new legal framework would 'give applicants, caseworkers and the courts the clarity they need, so that our immigration rules are applied in a way which strikes the right balance between individual family rights and the wider public interest'.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'This is another ludicrous decision by an immigration judge openly defying the democratically elected Government's policy.
'We can't have unlimited immigration from every conflict zone in the world and we can't have the NHS used for everyone around the would who wants to use it.'
He urged the Government to 'urgently' repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA), which enshrines the ECHR in UK law for immigration matters, to 'stop these nonsense decisions by activist judges who abuse the HRA to make up their own new immigration rules'.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, which advocates quitting the ECHR, said: 'What guarantees are there that this woman will not claim asylum once here? We should not let any Palestinian people settle here given [the] risk of extremism.'
It follows a similar case revealed by The Telegraph, in which a family of Palestinians successfully argued under the ECHR that the risks in Gaza to their family life were so exceptional that they should be allowed to come to the UK under the Government's Ukrainian refugee scheme.
In the more recent case, the Palestinian grandmother claimed denying her a visitor's visa would jeopardise her family life with her daughter, a charity worker living in the UK.
She said she wanted to develop the relationship through the visit, after years of living apart but maintaining close contact.
Lawyers for the family rejected claims by the Home Office that she might stay longer than the six months on a visitor's visa, because her home and life was still in Gaza. Her daughter with whom she will stay is paying her £55,000 medical fees.
The Home Office argued that under its rules such relationships and short-term visits were not covered by the ECHR, and were generally restricted to spouses or children seeking to come to the UK.
It told the court: 'The Secretary of State is concerned about the potential proliferation of applications for entry clearance from individuals from Gaza and other conflict zones if [they] are granted entry clearance because they have a family member in the UK who has been providing them with financial or emotional support.'
Lawyers for the department said the case could also throw into doubt the Government's policy for resettling refugees by making schemes such as those for Ukrainians, Hong Kongers and Afghans effectively redundant, if anyone from a conflict zone could use human rights laws to come to the UK.
They argued that if article eight was extended to Gaza 'there would be little need for such schemes'.
However, Rebecca Owens, the upper tribunal judge, ruled in favour of the Palestinian family, noting that the Home Office rejection of the application had a serious impact on the mental health of the daughter.
The tribunal ruling read: 'We find that the refusal of entry clearance amounts to an interference with this family life because the sponsor is physically unable to visit her mother in Gaza to develop their family life in that country and it is not suggested that during the current time they could spend time together elsewhere.
'We find that the appellant's intention of coming to the UK is genuinely to access medical treatment as a visitor and have some respite.
'We find that she does not want to settle permanently in the UK and that the application for private medical treatment is a genuine application which has not been made to circumvent immigration control.'