Date: 10.01.

2012 Our Ref: MU/ILRApp/MAMUN/150371/12/11 UK Border Agency Indefinite Leave to Remain SET (O) PO BOX 591 Durham DH1 9FS Dear Sirs, Re: MOHD RIAZ UDDIN MAMUN, DOB: 15/03/1971, BANGLADESHI. Application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK on the basis of 10 years continuous lawful residence in the UK for Mr Mohd Riaz Uddin Mamun. We have been instructed by the above named client to act on his behalf and to assist him to make an application for his Indefinite Leave to Remain under 10 years continuous lawful Residency category. We enclosed herewith the following documents: i. Completed application form SET (O) Version 10/2011.

ii. 972.00 as application fees by Bank Cheque.

iii. Two passport size photographs of the applicant. iv. Two passport Sized Photographs of each dependent [2x2=4] v. Passports [3]. vi. Statement of the applicant [1]. vii. Certificate of Life in the UK Test [2]. viii. Copy of academic certificates & transcripts [1]. ix. Nikahnama (Marriage certificate) x. Sons Birth certificate xi. Letter and Annual School reports from Curwen Primary School xii. Documents in relation to applicants property mortgage. xiii. Letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service in relation to applicants Judicial Review claim. 1. Our above clients application also demands focus on the ECHR Article 8 which provides protection against interference with a persons private or family life. In immigration cases, this often involves: cases where someone wants to join his or her family in the UK cases where someone faces being separated from his or her family in the UK cases where someone has established other private life interests in the UK and faces being separated from these

1 Grampian House, 205 Marsh Wall, London E14 9YT Tel: 020 7005 0444 Fax: 020 7092 9830 E-mail: info.immigration4u@gmail.com Web: www.immigration4u.org.uk
OISC Ref: F200600142

2. It is now well established that Article 8 can, depending on the particular circumstances of a case, provide a way to challenge what would otherwise be a lawful exercise of immigration control in removing someone from, or refusing someones entry to, the UK. In broad terms this will depend upon: the relative importance of the individuals family and private life the degree to which removal or refusal of entry would interfere with that individuals private and family life whether, taking all factors into account, it is disproportionate to insist upon immigration control (removal/refusal of entry) despite the degree of interference this would cause

3. We urge your office take note that, when considering a claim or appeal relying on Article
8, it is important to carefully consider what private and family life are all about. Our client wishes to rely on the following extract from the opinion of Lord Bingham in Huang [2007] UKHL 11 : the main importance of the case law is in illuminating the core value which article 8 exists to protect. This is not, perhaps, hard to recognise. Human beings are social animals. They depend on others. Their family, or extended family, is the group on which many people most heavily depend, socially, emotionally and often financially. There comes a point at which, for some, prolonged and unavoidable separation from this group seriously inhibits their ability to live full and fulfilling lives. Matters such as the age, health and vulnerability of the applicant, the closeness and previous history of the family, the applicant's dependence on the financial and emotional support of the family, the prevailing cultural tradition and conditions in the country of origin and many other factors may all be relevant. 4. Our client also wishes to urge your office to note that the focus here on family should not be taken as an indication that the discussion has no or less relevance to other important human relationships and activities, which constitute private life. The same factors and general approach would be equally valid in seeking to understand what was meant by private life in the context of Article 8. Moreover, in Article 8 claims and appeals, it is important to remember that Article 8 protects a right to respect for both private and family life. When seeking to establish the degree of interference that may be caused by immigration control (removal/refusal of entry) or assessing proportionality, it is necessary to consider all relevant factors together including those that may relate to private life and those that may relate to family life.

5. In Beoku-Betts [2008] UKHL 39 , the House of Lords considered the question of

whose private and family life rights ought to be considered in an Article 8 appeal should the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) consider only the rights of the individual appellant; or should the rights of all the relevant family members be considered? The House of Lords decided that all the relevant family members should be considered. As such, we request you to note that our client has established a very well-founded family and private life together with his wife Noor-E-Jannat Happy (25.09.1982) and son Riyasat Uddin (18.10.2005); hence, removing our client from the UK will most certainly damage this family and private life that they enjoy. Because, in the event of his and his familys
1 Grampian House, 205 Marsh Wall, London E14 9YT Tel: 020 7005 0444 Fax: 020 7092 9830 E-mail: info.immigration4u@gmail.com Web: www.immigration4u.org.uk
OISC Ref: F200600142

removal, they will lose their comfort zone which they have established through much toil, sacrifice and hard work. Especially, their 6 year old son was born here and knows no other place. He has only been in the UK since his birth; he started his schooling in the UK. He has a number of friends at school and within their neighbourhood. Our client owns a property. As such, the degree of interference in their family and private life will be totally disproportionate while balanced against the interest of the wider British public: The right to respect for the family life of one necessarily encompasses the right to respect for the family life of others, normally a spouse or minor children, with whom that family life is enjoyed.

6. Our client wishes to refer to Huang [2007] UKHL 11 . The abstract of the above case is
that the role of an appellate immigration authority when deciding appeals against refusal of leave to enter or remain on human rights grounds under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is to decide whether the challenged decision is incompatible with a Convention right and therefore unlawful. It does not have a secondary reviewing function based on a finding against the primary decision maker of irrationality, procedural impropriety or misdirection. There is no additional requirement that to succeed on Convention grounds a case must be an exceptional one. 7. The judgment of this case starts by reviewing the increasing role of human rights law in making immigration decisions. Their Lordships concluded that Parliament had intended the relevant sections of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to form part of the overall scheme to ensure that public authorities, in this case immigration authorities, should apply Convention principles directly. In context and read purposively, it is plain that the legal requirement of a section 65 appeal is to consider the compatibility of the decision with a Convention right. There was no intent to impose the more restrictive standards of judicial review in place of an ordinary appeal process.

8. The House of Lords then considered the way in which that such an appeal should be
carried out in Article 8 cases where the applicant is denied leave to enter or remain under the Rules, but where they assert that the 8(2) justification is insufficient. Quite rightly, they concluded that the starting point must be an examination of up to date facts. The appeal authority then carries out the "ordinary judicial function" of weighing up the considerations on each side and in particular the justification under 8(2) and general considerations such as the need for a workable, robust, predictable immigration control which discourages fraud, criminality and so on. In doing so, there is no assumption that the immigration policy itself strikes the right balance between the state and the individual's interests .

9. Also, the concept of private life as protected by Article 8, has repeatedly been held to be a

very broad one. In Niemietz v Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97 the EcTHCR said as follows: The Court does not consider it possible or necessary to attempt an exhaustive definition of the notion of "private life". However, it would be too restrictive to limit the notion to an "inner circle" in which the individual may live his own personal life as he chooses and to exclude therefrom entirely the outside world not
1 Grampian House, 205 Marsh Wall, London E14 9YT Tel: 020 7005 0444 Fax: 020 7092 9830 E-mail: info.immigration4u@gmail.com Web: www.immigration4u.org.uk
OISC Ref: F200600142

encompassed within that circle. Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.

10. In the House of Lords case of Razgar , Lord Bingham said the following about the nature
of private life (paragraph 9): This judgment establishes, in my opinion quite clearly, that reliance may in principle be placed on article 8 to resist an expulsion decision, even where the main emphasis is not on the severance of family and social ties which the applicant has enjoyed in the expelling country but on the consequences for his mental health of removal to the receiving country. The threshold of successful reliance is high, but if the facts are strong enough article 8 may in principle be invoked. It is plain that "private life" is a broad term, and the Court has wisely eschewed any attempt to define it comprehensively. It is relevant for present purposes that the Court saw mental stability as an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private life. In Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1, paragraph 61 , the Court held the expression to cover "the physical and psychological integrity of a person" and went on to observe that:

"Article 8 also protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world." Elusive though the concept is, I think one must understand "private life" in article 8 as extending to those features which are integral to a person's identity or ability to function socially as a person. Professor Feldman, writing in 1997 before the most recent decisions, helpfully observed ("The Developing Scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights", [1997] EHRLR 265, 270): "Moral integrity in this sense demands that we treat the person holistically as morally worthy of respect, organising the state and society in ways which respect people's moral worth by taking account of their need for security."

11. The concept is clearly an exceedingly broad one. In Janjanin v Secretary of State

for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 448 the Court of Appeal did not refuse to recognise that valuable and responsible work in the National Health Service could constitute private life. Equally someone who made a great contribution to the community outside work, or who has close relationships in the UK such as being someones carer, might be able to build a case. Civ 1721 (12 December 2005) , the Court of Appeal noted that there is ample authority for the proposition that the obligations under Article 8 require a state not only to refrain from interference with existing life, but also from inhibiting the development of a real family life in the future. This could have an impact on a case where two brothers hoped to enjoy family life together in the future. This was not to say that where there has
1 Grampian House, 205 Marsh Wall, London E14 9YT Tel: 020 7005 0444 Fax: 020 7092 9830 E-mail: info.immigration4u@gmail.com Web: www.immigration4u.org.uk
OISC Ref: F200600142

12. In R (Ahmadi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA

been no pre-existing family life and there exists only a future intention that will be sufficient to engage Article 8: there is the world of difference between interfering with a long-established family life and merely preventing or inhibiting an opportunity in the future to develop such a family relationship. In the above circumstances, we should be grateful if you would kindly consider our above clients application sympathetically and grant him Indefinite Leave to Remain under 10 years lawful residency category. If we may be of any further assistance please feel free to contact us. Yours Faithfully,

______________ Immigration4u Enc.

1 Grampian House, 205 Marsh Wall, London E14 9YT Tel: 020 7005 0444 Fax: 020 7092 9830 E-mail: info.immigration4u@gmail.com Web: www.immigration4u.org.uk
OISC Ref: F200600142