Appellant has failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to place himself in a position in which he is able to leave the United Kingdom – applying Paragraph 7(A)(1)(ii) of Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended by Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004.
Simple indication that he is unable to take steps to return to his country of origin is not sufficient to satisfy this test. It was found that he had wilfully and deliberately avoided a return to his country of origin.
A decision to discontinue support is not a breach of Article 3 and Article 8 of the appellant’s ECHR rights. Consideration of SSHD v Limbuela, Tesema and Adam  EWCA Civ 540.
See also application of European Court decision in Johansen Norway  23 EHRR 33 – Article 8 is not violated where the appellant retains a right of access to and contact with their children – even where the child is place in care.
Withdrawal of support from the family in particular that this may result in the children being taken into care is neither necessary nor proportionate – applying Costelo-Roberts v United Kingdom  19 EHRR 112.
Read the full decision in