Caguitla vs Secretary of State for the Home Department

This case involved an appeal by Glydelyn Mae Caguitla against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, focusing on the interpretation of paragraphs 197-199 of the Immigration Rules concerning leave granted to children of overseas domestic workers.

TLDR:

• Glydelyn Mae Caguitla appealed against the refusal of her application for indefinite leave to remain.
• The case centered on the interpretation of paragraphs 197-199 of the Immigration Rules.
• The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, clarifying the requirements under the rules.

The appellant, Glydelyn Mae Caguitla, was born on 20 August 1998 and is a national of the Philippines. Her mother, M, arrived in the UK in 2007 with entry clearance as a domestic worker and eventually obtained British citizenship in 2014. Caguitla and her father applied for entry clearance as family members of a British citizen in 2016 and were granted leave until 30 December 2020.

Upon expiration of her leave, Caguitla applied for indefinite leave to remain, which was refused on 7 May 2021. She appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted, focusing on the interpretation of the relevant Immigration Rules.

The Upper Tribunal examined paragraphs 197-199 of the Immigration Rules, which pertain to the leave granted to children of persons with limited leave to remain. The Tribunal noted that the rules required the parent to have leave under specific paragraphs of the Immigration Rules, which did not apply to British citizens.

The Tribunal found that Caguitla did not meet the requirements of paragraph 197(ii) as she was over 18 and did not have current leave as the child of a person with leave under the specified paragraphs. Additionally, her mother, being a British citizen, did not have the required leave status at the relevant time.

Mr. Hodson, representing the appellant, argued that the rules should be interpreted to include children of British citizens. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the rules clearly distinguished between those with leave and British citizens.

The Tribunal concluded that Caguitla did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules and dismissed the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific requirements set out in the rules.

Legal representatives: Mr. Hodson for the appellant, Mr. T Lindsey for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Dove, President, Mr. C M G Ockelton, Vice President

Case Citation Reference: [2023] UKUT 116 (IAC)