Ravat and Others v. Entry Certificate Officer, Bombay
| Publisher | United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority |
| Author | Immigration Appeal Tribunal |
| Publication Date | 21 November 1973 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | [1974] Imm AR 79 |
| Type of Decision | TH/1254/72(226) |
| Cite as | Ravat and Others v. Entry Certificate Officer, Bombay, [1974] Imm AR 79, United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority, 21 November 1973, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_AIT,3ae6b67248.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. |
RAVAT & OTHERS v ENTRY CERTIFICATE OFFICER, BOMBAY, TH/1254/72(226)
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
[1974] Imm AR 79
Hearing Date: 21 November 1973
21 November 1973
Index Terms:
Children -- "Family or other considerations" -- Orphaned children, boy aged 17 and girls 14 and 10 years living in Indian village -- Uncles and aunts in same village and elsewhere in India -- Brother in United Kingdom seeking to have siblings settle with him and wife -- Relevance of family ties in Indian society and of assumption of financial responsibility by children's eldest brother -- Whether children's "exclusion undesirable" under provisions of immigration rules -- Cmnd 4298, para 39.
Held:
The appellant children, citizens of India, a boy aged 17 and his sisters 14 and 10 years old, had recently been orphaned. They applied for entry certificates to enable them to join their married eldest brother in the United Kingdom as his dependants. The appellants were living in an Indian village in which 2 married paternal uncles also resided (one of them childless), and there were 3 maternal uncles and 2 maternal aunts, as well as a paternal aunt, living in Bombay and Gujerat. The appellants' brother in this country was prepared to continue to support his siblings financially. The applications were refused by the respondent, inter alia because he considered that the known strength and closeness of Indian family ties would lead the appellants' relatives in India to help them as necessary after their parents' deaths; and for this reason he did not accept that there were compassionate circumstances such as would warrant the grant of entry certificates under para 39 of Cmnd 4298 n1. n1 The relevant provisions in paragraph 39 of Cmnd 4298 are set out in footnote 2, post. The appellants appealed to an adjudicator and from his dismissal of their appeals (for the reasons set out on pp 81-82, post) they appealed to the Tribunal. It was submitted for the appellants that, inter alia, the adjudicator had not taken sufficient account of the importance of tradition and custom whereby it would be the expectation within an Asian family that on the death of the father the eldest son should assume responsibility. Held: dismissing the appeals, (i) as to taking account of tradition and custom, the adjudicator properly judged the appeals under the provisions of para 39 of Cmnd 4298 n1; (ii) the assumption of financial responsibility by a person in this country for members of his family abroad did not by itself confer a right under the immigration rules to call those members from abroad to join him here; (iii) the adjudicator was right on the facts to conclude that the family and other considerations involved were not so compelling as to justify the appellants' admission to this country under para 39 of Cmnd 4298.Counsel:
Mrs S. Parkes of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, for the appellants. B. Lockett for the respondent. PANEL: P. N. Dalton Esq (Vice President), L. Golding Esq, A. S. W. Newman Esq.Judgment One:
THE TRIBUNAL: The appellants in this appeal are Gulam Mohamed Ravat and his two sisters, Rashida and Zulekha. They applied for the grant of entry certificates on 17 March 1972 and on the application forms it was stated that they were born on 20.2.1955, 2.6.1958, and 20.12.1262 respectively. Mr Ravat said that he and his sisters wished to enter the United Kingdom for permanent settlement as dependants of their brother Mr Essop Mohamed Ravat, and the entry certificate officer did not question that for the purpose of para 39 of Cmnd 4298 they were all under the age of 18 at the time of application. The appellants produced certain documents which are enumerated in the explanatory statement, and Gulam and Rashida were interviewed by the entry certificate officer. Amongst the documents produced were two death certificates which showed that they had recently been orphaned, the father having died 11 months previously and the mother 5 months previously. Another document, Annexure 4, was a declaration of sponsorship. Paragraph 9 of the entry certificate officer's statement is in the following terms: -- "9. Annexure 4 describes the accommodation which the sponsor has to offer as comprising 2 bedrooms, 2 reception rooms, a kitchen, bathroon and toilet, and his weekly wage as @ 24.75. In view of his own family circumstances and possible financial commitments I did not think that he would be able to maintain and accommodate his 3 siblings satisfactorily. Nor could I accept that there existed compassionate circumstances to such a degree as to warrant the grant of entry certificates to the appellants because: (a) they have 2 paternal uncles living in their village, one of whom has no children of his own and could, I presume, certainly look after his brother's children's welfare; (b) they also have 3 maternal uncles, 2 maternal aunts and a paternal aunt living in Bombay and Gujarat (2 other maternal aunts reside in the United Kingdom); and (c) the principal appellant is of working age and I found it rather difficult to believe the reason he gave for not being able to find work in view of his subsequent statement that he would work in Britain if his sponsor wished him to do so. I should add that Indian family ties are extremely strong and close and for the appellants' relatives here to decline to help them as necessary after their parents' death would run completely counter to generally accepted standards of behaviour." The appellants appealed to an adjudicator, and the sponsor and another witness gave evidence in support of the appellants' case. In his determination the adjudicator set out the facts of the case and considered them in relation to para 39 of Cmnd 4298 n2. He then said: n2 Paragraph 39 provides, so far as here material, as follows: "... In other cases the Secretary of State will authorise the admission of a child under 18 to join one parent or a relative other than a parent, only if he is satisfied that family or other considerations make exclusion undesirable -- for example, where the other parent is physically or mentally incapable of looking after the child -- and that suitable arrangements for the child's care will be made in this country...". "Mrs S Parkes pleaded her case with passionate conviction. Here were three orphans, all under 18, and Indian family life was not necessarily so closeknit as to ensure that these three appellants could be taken care of by the uncles next door. Both uncles were relatively elderly men and one was in poor health. It was but natural the person to whom the appellants should turn for help was their elder brother in the United Kingdom. From documents 9 and 10 in the appeal bundle, it was clear it had been intended the appellants should come to the United Kingdom with their mother, but she died before this could be achieved. The girls in particular were of tender age, verging on puberty, and required somebody younger than their uncles and aunts to give them the care and supervision they needed. It was not right that they should have to live with their brother in the same room, and in any event he clearly was not capable of coping with the problems facing him. The elder brother in the United Kingdom had a young wife who would look after the girls as well as her own children. I gave careful consideration to her plea, but could not ignore the situation as it is now. 9. The principal appellant is a young man verging on the age of 18 and it is a recognised feature of Indian society that the unmarried womenfolk are in general jealously guarded by parants and if need be, by near relatives. Much more so than in, for example, West Indian society. The appellants had next door to them two uncles who were both married. One uncle had no family. In addition there were no less than six uncles and aunts in Bombay. The sponsor in this country was prepared to go on sending the appellants money and in these circumstances I had to come to the conclusion the 'family and other considerations' involved were not so compelling as to justify their admission to this country. 10. I did not omit to consider the possibility or desirability of authorising entry certificates for the two girls aged 14 and 10 respectively. On balance however it seemed to me that if entry certificates were granted to them and not to the principal appellant, I would be in effect splitting up what remained of a family unit. The case would have been stronger if the principal appellant Mohamed Gulam Ravat had been of tender years, but even then I doubt whether the 'family or other considerations' involved would have justified admission under paragraph 39. The fact would still remain quite stark and clear that next door to the three appellants were two uncles and their two wives. I could not accept that they would treat their nephew and nieces as pariahs or that the conditions under which the appellants were living were intolerable." The adjudicator gave leave to appeal to the Tribunal. The ground of appeal that was argued by Mrs Parkes before the Tribunal was that there were family and other considerations which rendered exclusion undesirable. Mrs Parkes put in evidence two reports. One from the Social Services Department of the County Borough of Walsall reported on the sponsor and his family circumstances and expressed the opinion that the sponsor would have adequate accommodation for the appellants. We should say here that the adjudicator had said in his determination that he was satisfied that suitable arrangements could be made for the care of the appellants, and Mr Lockett did not contest this. The other report was from the Chief Officer (B.P.O. Act) Balsar, and sent to the Indian Council of Social Welfare. This officer had travelled to the appellants' village and had interviewed them and also their two uncles and their neighbours. Mrs Parkes argued the appellants' case very fully as it is apparent she did before the adjudicator and she sought to show that in all the circumstances their exclusion was undesirable. She submitted that the adjudicator did not take sufficient account of the importance of tradition and custom whereby it would be the expectation within an Asian family that on the death of the father the eldest son should assume responsibility. This responsibility the sponsor had assumed, and even if the appeal was dismissed he would still feel he had an obligation to go on supporting them. We do not agree that the adjudicator was in error in not taking sufficient account of tradition and custom. He had to judge this matter, and did judge this matter, under the provisions of para 39 of Cmnd 4298, n3 and the assumption of financial responsibility by a person in this country, whether it be the eldest son or any other person, for members of his family abroad, does not by itself confer a right under the immigration rules to call the members of the family from abroad to join him in this country, If it were shown that a sponsor could not discharge his financial responsibility because, for example, of a refusal by the authorities in the country abroad to admit funds or because the authorities habitually sequestrated the funds, then it might be properly considered that exclusion was desirable. But that is not this case. The adjudicator carefully considered this matter and we are satisfied that he was right on the facts to conclude that the family and other considerations involved were not so compelling as to justify the appellants' admission to this country. n3 The relevant provisions of paragraph 39 are set out in footnote 2, ante.DISPOSITION:
Appeal dismissed.Copyright notice: Crown Copyright
