More fundamentally, however, the concern raised by this is that cases where removal might prejudice a claimant's family life
in a
manner sufficiently
serious to amount to an Art 8
breach, having taken all relevant considerations into account, might still be dismissed on the basis that the case did not form part of a very small minority.
«
In an Article 8 case where this question is reached, the ultimate question for the appellate immigration authority is whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain, in circumstances where the life of the family can not reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article
In an Article 8 case where this question is reached, the ultimate question for the appellate immigration authority is whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain,
in circumstances where the life of the family can not reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article
in circumstances where the life of the family can not reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing
in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article
in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant
in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article
in a
manner sufficiently
serious to amount to a
breach of the fundamental right protected by Article 8.