Tribunal dismisses HS's appeal to remain in UK despite family life

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed a human rights appeal brought by an Albanian national against the refusal of leave to remain in the UK on the basis of his marriage to a British citizen, finding that his removal would not breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights despite his relationship with his British child.

The appellant, identified only as HS in line with an anonymity direction made to protect a child involved in the case, entered the UK unlawfully in 2019. He was later convicted of being concerned in the production of cannabis between December 2020 and February 2021, and was sentenced in December 2025 to twenty five months' imprisonment. He began a relationship with his wife, referred to as Q, in 2023, and the couple married in late 2024. Their son, referred to as L, was born shortly before HS began his custodial sentence.

HS's application for leave to remain, made in January 2025 on the basis of his marriage, was refused in March 2026. The Home Office found that his criminal conviction meant he failed the suitability requirements of Appendix FM, and was not satisfied there were insurmountable obstacles to the family relocating together, or that his removal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences.

Judge Lisa Gibbs, hearing the appeal at Hendon Magistrates' Court, found that HS could not meet the Immigration Rules given his sentence, as there is no discretion available where a person has been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment or more. Because little weight could be attached to his relationship with Q or his private life, formed while he was living unlawfully in the UK, the tribunal's focus turned to his relationship with his son and the wider proportionality assessment under Article 8.

The judgement accepted that HS maintained a subsisting relationship with L despite his imprisonment, noting evidence of regular prison visits, daily contact with Q, and permitted video calls, along with a trip Q had made with L to Albania to meet his paternal grandparents. While accepting it would ordinarily be in a child's best interests to grow up with both parents, the tribunal found this was not determinative, and that L, being of a young age with no ties beyond his immediate family, could reasonably be expected to relocate to Albania if his parents chose that path.

Weighing the public interest, the judgement placed significant weight on the seriousness of the drug production offence, noting that HS had been sentenced on a full facts basis reflecting a substantial cannabis yield, and on the deterrent effect of upholding immigration control against those who enter and remain unlawfully. Factors in HS's favour, including his single conviction some years earlier, his commitment to fatherhood, and the couple's fertility difficulties, were found not to outweigh the public interest in his removal.

The tribunal noted that HS retained linguistic and cultural ties to Albania, where his parents continued to live, and that Q's financial position meant she was able to offer some support should he need to re-establish himself there. It was not disputed that the couple's relationship was genuine, but the judge concluded that both parties should have known HS's immigration status meant he might not be permitted to remain in the UK.

The appeal was dismissed, with the tribunal finding that removal would not breach HS's rights under Article 8, and no fee award was made.