RC & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department: tribunal dismisses elderly Bangladeshi couple's Article 3 and Article 8 appeals

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of two elderly Bangladeshi visitors who argued that removal would breach their Article 3 and Article 8 rights, finding that the medical and expert evidence fell short.

In RC & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (HU/67075/2024 and HU/67078/2024), heard at Newport on 17 September 2026, Judge Boyes granted anonymity because of the appellants' private medical information. Mr Islam appeared for the appellants, R Dosso for the Home Office.

The appellants entered the UK in 2023 as visitors to see their daughter and grandchildren. They said an illness soon after arrival, with pre-existing conditions, meant one of them now needed full-time care from their daughter. The Home Office refused their application to regularise their stay in December 2024. They relied on Article 3, on the very significant obstacles test in paragraph PL 5.1 of Appendix Private Life, and on Article 8 outside the Rules. Only their daughter, the sponsor, gave oral evidence.

On Article 3, the judge applied AM (Zimbabwe) and Paposhvili and was not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing removal would cause a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health. Most conditions pre-dated arrival, and the later illness had been treated successfully. Country evidence showed functioning public and private healthcare in Bangladesh, including specialist facilities and free or low-cost treatment for those of limited means. There was no independent medical assessment of the appellants. GP letters were brief and repeated what the appellants had reported, and no clinician had said either was unfit to fly. The belief that they could not travel rested on the sponsor's evidence.

The judge attached little weight to the psychologist's report for the appellants. It contained no curriculum vitae or other detail of the author's qualifications, contrary to paragraph 9.3(b) of the Practice Direction. It did not distinguish information supplied by the appellants from that supplied by the sponsor, as paragraphs 9.3(e) and (f) require, and it ventured into medical and country matters beyond the author's demonstrated expertise. The judge also questioned how such detailed information was obtained from appellants said to have serious difficulty processing it. The judge said this was not a rejection for formal non-compliance alone, but because the deficiencies limited any assessment of reliability. The social work report also attracted little weight, reading as advocacy that accepted the sponsor's account without scrutiny.

On integration, the appellants speak Bengali, spent almost all their lives in Bangladesh and have relatives there. The judge found no credible independent evidence that relatives had taken over the family property, which the appellants had declared owning in their entry clearance application, and noted that Bangladesh has a functioning legal system. The sponsor had said she could travel to resolve the issue. Care could be provided by relatives or paid carers. Cultural expectations that a daughter should provide care were no answer, the judge said, since the question was whether care was available in the country of return, not who the family would prefer to provide it.

Turning to Article 8, the judge accepted a close emotional bond but found no dependency beyond the normal ties between parents, adult children and grandchildren. Alternatively, any interference was proportionate. The appellants had entered as temporary visitors with precarious status, would return together as a couple, and could maintain contact through visits and modern communication, as before 2023. The children's best interests were a primary consideration, but there was no credible evidence of a stronger bond than before. In the judge's judgement, the adult dependent relative route remained open but is a difficult test.

The appeals were dismissed.