Justice Matrix · Issues
Family unity and the right to family life
When does removing or detaining a parent break the family, and what does the law do about it?
How courts weigh family unity against removal and detention powers, gathered from the real cases that already carry these tags.
46 cases2 campaigns1994–2026
19942026
The Law46
FavorablehighSource checked
Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021
High Court of Manipur at Imphal · 2021
AdversehighSource checked
Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789
Supreme Court of India · 2021
FavorablehighSource checked
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019)
ECtHR (Grand Chamber) · 2019
FavorablehighSource checked
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs [2017] ZACC 22
Constitutional Court of South Africa · 2017
FavorablehighSource checked
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), App No 30696/09
ECtHR (Grand Chamber) · 2011
FavorablehighSource checked
Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi and Another v Union of India and Others, 1999 CRI.L.J. 919
Gujarat High Court · 1999
FavorablehighSource checked
National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, 1996 SCC (1) 742
Supreme Court of India · 1996
FavorablemediumSource checked
Dongh Lian Kham and Another v Union of India and Another, WP(CRL) No.1884/2015
Delhi High Court · 2015
FavorablemediumSource checked
Seyed Ata Mohamamdi v Union of India and Others, A.D. 1458 of 1994
High Court of Judicature at Bombay · 1994
anchorNeeds review
Hagi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37546 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
anchorNeeds review
Corra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 33042 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
Needs review
C-404/26
CJEU · 2026
Needs review
C-230/26
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) · 2026
Needs review
C-328/26
CJEU · 2026
Needs review
Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen (C-835/26)
2026
Needs review
C-223/26
Court of Justice of the European Union · 2026
Needs review
C-178/26
CJEU · 2026
Needs review
C-252/26
Court of Justice of the European Union · 2026
Needs review
Komise pro rozhodování ve věcech pobytu cizinců (C-722/26)
2026
Needs review
C-377/26
CJEU · 2026
Needs review
Spirink C-445/26
CJEU · 2026
Needs review
Fisnoix C-333/26
Court of Justice of the European Union · 2026
Needs review
C-449/26
Court of Justice of the European Union · 2026
Needs review
C-482/26
CJEU · 2026
Needs review
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) Bangladesh
2025
Needs review
EB, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland; Transfer of claims)
2025
AdverseNeeds review
Farooq, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (meaning of permission to stay)
2025
PendingNeeds review
Laci v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Deprivation; fraud; procedure)
United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · 2025
FavorableNeeds review
MH (Appendix EU, withdrawal of concession) Albania
2025
AdverseNeeds review
IX, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial Review; costs)
2025
Needs review
UKUT/IAC/2025/277
Upper Tribunal · 2025
AdverseNeeds review
Baarinsa & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appendix ROB: establishing wholly-owned subsidiary)
2025
AdverseNeeds review
EK & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rule 17 Withdrawal)
United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · 2025
PendingNeeds review
Guerrero (s104(4A); statutory abandonment; right of appeal) Trinidad and Tobago
United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · 2025
PendingNeeds review
Rai & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grounds of Appeal - Limited Grant of Permission)
2025
Needs review
Ghira (R 25, AIP, Fairness) Romania [2025] UKUT 350 (IAC)
2025
Needs review
Ghira (R 25, AIP, Fairness) Romania
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · 2025
Needs review
Da Silva Pinho (FtT - jurisdiction) Portugal
2025
AdverseNeeds review
MM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (effect of withdrawal section 94B) (Rev1)
2025
AdverseNeeds review
Ajmal & Hooi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (new matter - "considered" - Reg 9(6)(b))
2025
PendingNeeds review
ST (Adoptions, 'overseas' adoptions, para 310)
2025
FavorableNeeds review
Plaintiff M19A-2024 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
High Court of Australia · 2025
PendingNeeds review
Da Silva Pinho (FtT - jurisdiction)
2025
AdverseNeeds review
Gurung, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ACRS meaning - policy interpretation principles)
United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · 2024
FavorableNeeds review
J.B. and Others v. Malta (no. 1766/23)
2024
Needs review
Hardeker (C-182/26 PPU)
CJEU
The Movement2
Community context0
Lived-experience accounts for this issue are not in the matrix yet. Contribute one.
What the courts held
The doctrine, in the courts’ own holdings.
Held for protection (11)
“The Manipur High Court held that Article 21 protects foreigners and that non-refoulement is encompassed within the right to life and personal liberty, subject to security concerns, then ordered safe passage to Delhi to a…”
Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021 (2021)Source checked
“Found violations linked to inadequate assessment of risk on return to Serbia; guidance on Article 3/13 standards in border zones.”
Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (GC), App No 47287/15 (2019) (2019)Source checked
“Sections authorising prolonged detention without prompt judicial review unconstitutional; strengthened safeguards for non-nationals.”
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs [2017] ZACC 22 (2017)Source checked
“Violations of Articles 3 and 13 due to conditions and procedural deficiencies; landmark on reception standards and transfer suspensions.”
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), App No 30696/09 (2011)Source checked
Held against (8)
“The Supreme Court refused interim relief but stated that Rohingya persons covered by the application should not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for deportation is followed. The order is a restrictive counterp…”
Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789 (2021)Source checked
“The Tribunal held that "permission to stay" has the same meaning as "leave to remain" under the Immigration Act 1971, and is a unitary concept encompassing both temporary (limited) leave and permanent leave, including in…”
Farooq, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (meaning of permission to stay) (2025)Needs review
“Where a judicial review claim is compromised or rendered academic before a substantive determination, the Tribunal must assess success in costs by reference to the principles in R(M) v Croydon LBC (Lord Neuberger's three…”
IX, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial Review; costs) (2025)Needs review
“The Tribunal (UTJ Stephen Smith) held that the "wholly-owned subsidiary" requirement in para 8.6(a) of Appendix ROB (Representative of an Overseas Business) is engaged at the point the UK subsidiary is established/incorp…”
Baarinsa & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appendix ROB: establishing wholly-owned subsidiary) (2025)Needs review
Playbook
What worked, what failed, what is reusable.
The pattern. Family-life arguments recur where removal or detention separates a parent from a child. This issue gathers the real records that already carry these tags so the pattern can be read in one place.
Read the source before relying on it. Each gathered record links to its own authority. This issue frames the question; it does not state the outcome of any case for you.
What to look for. Whether the court weighed the best interests of the child, whether less restrictive alternatives to detention were considered, and how the family-unity claim was paired with other grounds.
This is a research resource, not legal advice. Read the linked source before acting on it.
On this issue recently
Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021 (2021)Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789 (2021)Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi and Another v Union of India and Others, 1999 CRI.L.J. 919 (1999)National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, 1996 SCC (1) 742 (1996)Full digest
Research resource, not legal advice. Read the original source before acting. Cases and campaigns are gathered by shared issue tags; some may be machine-extracted and pending human review.