Appendix FM: exceptional circumstances cases under para GEN.3
Appendix FM: exceptional circumstances cases under para GEN.3

The following Immigration practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Appendix FM: exceptional circumstances cases under para GEN.3
  • Exceptional circumstances: para GEN.3.3: best interests of the child
  • Exceptional circumstances: para GEN.3.1: financial requirement
  • Guarantee of sustainable financial support from a third party
  • Prospective earnings from sustainable employment or self-employment of the applicant or their partner
  • Any other credible and reliable source of income or funds for the applicant or their partner
  • Loans
  • Exceptional circumstances: para GEN.3.2: residual cases
  • Exceptional circumstances guidance—relevant factors
  • Procedure
  • More...

This Practice Note looks at the of ‘Exceptional circumstances’ provisions found in para GEN.3.1‒3.3 of the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, which may apply where a partner, child or parent applying under Appendix FM does not meet all of the requirements of the five-year route. They may also apply where an application for leave to remain made in another category is considered under Appendix FM. Unlike para EX.1, which only applies to applications for leave to remain, the ‘Exceptional circumstances’ provisions apply to all applications for entry clearance and leave to remain.

On 22 February 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in R (MM (Lebanon)) v SSHD. This decision upheld the lawfulness of the ‘minimum income threshold’ for partner and children applications made under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, but found that the Immigration Rules and related Home Office guidance failed to take proper account of the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (BCIA 2009) to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The court also held that the guidance for Home Office decision-makers in relation to alternative sources of funding should be revised to ensure that decisions were consistent with their duties under the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically in relation to

Related documents:

Popular documents