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.
31 cases2 campaigns1994–2026
19942026
The Law31
anchorHuman-verified
Hagi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37546 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
anchorHuman-verified
Corra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 33042 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
Human-verified
Sadeghi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37536 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
Human-verified
Brar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37533 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
Human-verified
Dogan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 50158 (FC)
Federal Court · 2026
Human-verified
Naseer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 678
Federal Court · 2026
Human-verified
Beruchashvili v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 50925 (FC)
Federal Court · 2026
Human-verified
Caguitla v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37543 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
Human-verified
Oji v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37547 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
Human-verified
Herriott v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 48326 (CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada · 2026
FavorablehighVerified
Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021
High Court of Manipur at Imphal · 2021
AdversehighVerified
Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789
Supreme Court of India · 2021
FavorablehighVerified
Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi and Another v Union of India and Others, 1999 CRI.L.J. 919
Gujarat High Court · 1999
FavorablehighVerified
National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, 1996 SCC (1) 742
Supreme Court of India · 1996
FavorablemediumVerified
Dongh Lian Kham and Another v Union of India and Another, WP(CRL) No.1884/2015
Delhi High Court · 2015
FavorablemediumVerified
Seyed Ata Mohamamdi v Union of India and Others, A.D. 1458 of 1994
High Court of Judicature at Bombay · 1994
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
C-223/26
Court of Justice of the European Union · 2026
PendingNeeds review
Rai & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grounds of Appeal - Limited Grant of Permission)
2025
Needs review
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) Bangladesh
2025
Needs review
Da Silva Pinho (FtT - jurisdiction) Portugal
2025
Needs review
EB, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland; Transfer of claims)
2025
PendingNeeds review
Da Silva Pinho (FtT - jurisdiction)
2025
PendingNeeds review
ST (Adoptions, 'overseas' adoptions, para 310)
2025
AdverseNeeds review
Ajmal & Hooi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (new matter - "considered" - Reg 9(6)(b))
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
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
The People0
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 (6)
“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)Verified
“The Gujarat High Court recognised non-refoulement as connected to Article 21 protection of life and liberty, and restrained deportation while refugee status and protection risk were considered.”
Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi and Another v Union of India and Others, 1999 CRI.L.J. 919 (1999)Verified
“The Supreme Court held that the State must protect the life and liberty of Chakma/Hajong refugees under Article 21 and could not allow private groups to force them out. It also directed lawful consideration of citizenshi…”
National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, 1996 SCC (1) 742 (1996)Verified
“The Delhi High Court directed authorities to hear the petitioners and consider available options, including consultation with UNHCR and third-country resettlement, while recording the non-refoulement concern.”
Dongh Lian Kham and Another v Union of India and Another, WP(CRL) No.1884/2015 (2015)Verified
Held against (4)
“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)Verified
“The Upper Tribunal held that a matter is a "new matter" under regulation 9(6) of the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 only if it both satisfies regulation 9(6)(a) and has not been "previo…”
Ajmal & Hooi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (new matter - "considered" - Reg 9(6)(b)) (2025)Needs review
“The Upper Tribunal held that where the SSHD, after making an automatic deportation order under s.32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, withdraws either her refusal of a human rights claim or the s.94B certification of that c…”
MM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (effect of withdrawal section 94B) (Rev1) (2025)Needs review
“The Upper Tribunal (IAC) held that eligibility for resettlement under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) is not confined to Afghan nationals, but a potential beneficiary must establish that recent events in A…”
Gurung, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ACRS meaning - policy interpretation principles) (2024)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
Hagi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37546 (CA IRB) (2026)Corra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 33042 (CA IRB) (2026)Sadeghi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37536 (CA IRB) (2026)Brar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37533 (CA IRB) (2026)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.