Ozter and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Publisher	United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority
Author	Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Publication Date	1 July 1978
Citation / Document Symbol	[1978] Imm AR 137
Type of Decision	TH/26002/78(1269)
Cite as	Ozter and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1978] Imm AR 137, United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority, 1 July 1978, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_AIT,3ae6b66934.html [accessed 3 June 2023]
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

OZTER AND OTHERS v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, TH/26002/78(1269)

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

[1978] Imm AR 137

Hearing Date: 1 July 1978

1 July 1978

Index Terms:

Deportation -- Family of person against whom deportation order signed -- Children (12, 10 and 8) of parents whose deportation ordered following recommendation of Magistrates' Court -- Parents in breach of immigration law -- Children, with their mother, 'overstayers' since admission for one month in December 1973 -- Education for over 4 years at English schools, currently in State schools -- Home in Cyprus destroyed in recent political troubles and father's future employment there uncertain -- Doubtful reliability and effectiveness of plans for children's care and maintenance if permitted to remain in the United Kingdom -- Whether maintenance of family unit by children's deportation to Cyprus more desirable than avoidance of measure of disruption in children's lives if sent back there -- Immigration Act 1971, s 3(5)(c) -- HC 80, paras 45, 47.

Held:

The appellants were the sons of Cypriot parents whose deportation had been ordered by the Secretary of State in January 1977 on the recommendation of a Magistrates' Court following their conviction in June 1976 of immigration offences, including 'overstaying'. The appellant children, with their mother, had been admitted to the United Kingdom for one month in December 1973, and their limited leave had never been renewed. In April 1977, when the children were aged 12, 10 and 8, the Secretary of State decided that they should be deported under s 3(5)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971 n1.

n1 Section 3(5)(c) of the Act provides that a person who is not a patrial shall be liable to deportation "if another person to whose family he belongs is or has been ordered to be deported".

On the children's appeal to the Tribunal it was contended on their behalf that, having now spent more than 4 years in this country and attending English schools -- they were currently at state schools, they would have great difficulty in adjusting to life in Cyprus; further, that their home in Cyprus had been burnt down during the political troubles there, that employment for their father there was uncertain and that he would be unable to afford to pay for their education in Cyprus. On the evidence it was doubtful whether there were any realistic plans for the children's care and maintenance in this country by relatives or friends following the deportation of their parents.

Held (dismissing the appeal): After taking into consideration counsel's representations and the provisions of paras 45 n2 and 47 n3 of HC 80, the disruptive effect on the children's lives, should they be sent back to Cyprus, had in the Tribunal's opinion been grossly overstated, and to maintain the family unit the children should be with their parents.

n2 Paragraph 45 of HC 80 provides as follows: "In considering whether to require a wife and children to leave with the head of the family the Secretary of State will take account of all relevant factors, including -- length of residence in the United Kingdom; any ties which the wife or children have with the United Kingdom otherwise than as dependants of the principal deportee; the ability of the wife to maintain herself and the children in the United Kingdom, or to be maintained by relatives or friends without charge to public funds, not merely for a short period but for the foreseeable future; any compassionate or other special circumstances; any representations received from or on behalf of the wife and children."

n3 Paragraph 47 of HC 80, in so far as it relates to children under 18 who are attending school, provides as follows: "In the case of children of school age it will be right to take into account, on the one hand, the disruptive effect of removal on their education and, on the other, whether plans for their care and maintenance in this country if one or both parents were deported are realistic and likely to be effective."

Counsel:

T. Grice, counsel for the appellants.

K. E. R. Rogers for the respondent.

PANEL: P. N. Dalton Esq (Vice-President), L. W. Chapman Esq, E. A. Lewis Esq

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: The appellants in this appeal are the three sons of Mr Ahmet Ozter and Mrs Mukaddes Ozter against whom respectively the Secretary of State made a deportation order on 6 January 1977.

Mr Ozter arrived in the United Kingdom on 28 December 1972 and was admitted for one month on a condition prohibiting employment. Subsequently he remained in this country without authority and engaged in employment. Mrs Ozter, with the appellants, arrived on 24 December 1973 and was also admitted for one month on a condition prohibiting employment. On 21 June 1976 at Tower Bridge Magistrates Court Mr Ozter pleaded guilty to knowingly harbouring his wife whom he knew to be an overstayer, contrary to section 25(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, and was fined @ 20 and recommended for deportation. Mrs Ozter was also fined @ 20 and recommended for deportation after pleading guilty to knowingly remaining beyond the time limit of her leave to enter the United Kingdom contrary to s 24(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Act 1971. After considering all the relevant circumstances the Secretary of State decided to implement the Court's recommendations.

The Secretary of State then considered the position of the appellants. They were (early in 1977) only 12, 10 and 8 years of age respectively and their only ties with the United Kingdom were through their parents. Although the children had then spent over 3 years in this country they had no authority to remain beyond 24 January 1974. They were all said to be attending State schools but this gave them no claim to remain under the Immigration Rules. Moreover, the Secretary of State was not aware of any compassionate circumstances to justify not removing the appellants with their parents, or of any realistic and effective plans for their care and maintenance in the United Kingdom following the deportation of their parents n4.

n4 As required under para 47 of HC 80. (See footnote 3.)

The Secretary of State after considering the relevant circumstances and the relevant immigration rules decided on 20 April 1977 to deport the appellants by virtue of s 3(5)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971 n5.

n5 Section 3(5)(c) is set our in footnote 1.

The appellants appealed and the lengthy grounds of appeal were summarised as follows:

"1. The children can enjoy a good standard of living in this country which will not be available in Cyprus or any other country.

2. Mr Ozter has useful and gainful employment in this country and is a successful businessman. As a consequence he is able to keep both himself and his family. If he were deported to Cyprus there is every expectation that he would be unemployed and thus unable to support a family and look after them in the way that he would wish.

3. The children have been brought up in the English way of life and would have great difficulty adjusting to the change if deported from this country.

4. The children's education would suffer greatly if they were deported from this country.

5. All family ties are in this country.

6. This is a happy family unit settled in this country, which they now regard as their home. They have no home to go to in Cyprus as this was burned down in the recent troubles and the family unit would be destroyed if either the parents or the children were deported from this country."

The appellants and their father gave evidence as also did Mr Mehmet Reshat, who is the partner of Mr Ahmet Ozter. This witness said that if the parents had to leave he would take over the responsibility for the children and that Mr Ahmet Ozter's brother and brother-in-law would help financially. This evidence may be contrasted with a statement in the grounds of appeal forwarded by the appellants' solicitors, that the family, that is Mr Ahmet Ozter's family, a considerable number of whom are settled in this country, would be unable to take on the children if Mr and Mrs Ozter were deported and the children remained in this country, as this would represent too great an economic burden on the other members of the family. Mr Grice informed us at the commencement of the appeal that he was instructed that this statement was not correct. However, Mr Ozter's brother and brother-in-law were not called to give evidence and like the Secretary of State we are not aware of any realistic and effective plans for the appellants' care and maintenance in this country following the deportation of their parents.

Counsel submitted that this appeal concerned the children and they could not be criticised for their parents' behaviour. That no doubt is so but the fact remains that they are overstayers and are in this country in contravention of the immigration law, and their father, who says he would not be able to afford to pay for their education in Cyprus, is asking that they should be allowed to stay in this country and be educated at the taxpayers' expense. Paragraph 47 of HC 80 provides that it is right to take into account the disruptive effect of removal on the appellants' education and this we have done, as we have also taken into consideration the matters put forward by Mr Grice and the factors set out in para 45 of HC 80. n6 In our opinion the disruptive effect on the lives of the appellants, should they be sent back to Cyprus, has been greatly overstated, and indeed incorrectly stated when it is said in the grounds of appeal that the youngest appellant cannot even speak Turkish. To maintain the family unit these appellants should be with their parents, and in our view the Secretary of State in all the circumstances was fully justified in the decision, following the deportation orders against their parents, to deport the appellants.

n6 Paragraphs 45 and 47 are set out at footnotes 2 and 3, ante.

DISPOSITION:

Appeal dismissed.

SOLICITORS:

Tuck & Mann & Geffin, WC2.