Children younger than seven might now have a stronger case to argue
'The United Kingdom Border Agency is withdrawing DP5/96, a concession which has also been referred to as the seven year child concession, as of 9 December 2008.' - Phil Woolas, Minister for Borders and Immigration
As many people already know DP5/96 protected the rights of children born and/ or living in the UK continuously for at least 7 years.
It meant the child and parents could not be deported to the parents original country, as in most cases, it would be a traumatic and unfamiliar experience.
Effective immediately is the decision not to support visa applications relying on a DP5/96.
Is this a good or bad decision?
Removals will still be able to be challenged under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which takes into consideration the decisions in the cases of Beoku-Betts (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The withdrawal of 5/96 is due to changes in UK immigration rules and the Human Rights Act 1998, which appear to have superseded the rules of 5/96.
Children who have spent less than seven years in the UK might now have a case to argue as long as strong, documented evidence is produced to support an application.
Are you affected by the seven year child concession?
Were you relying on 5/96 for your indefinite leave to remain ? Do you have children born in the UK younger than 7?