I have always been a fan of Paddington Bear. What’s not to love. He’s a resourceful, hardworking and loving bear, but how would the most loveable immigrant bear fare with an application for leave to remain in the UK?

Paddington, you will remember, arrived in the UK and despite initial reluctance on part of the Brown family, became an integral part of their household. Later, his Aunt Lucy joins him, and they live happily ever after with the Browns, or so we hope.  But what happens to Paddington and Aunt Lucy if they are required to apply for leave to remain? Afterall, we were not told about their immigration status in the UK and sadly there are no amnesty programmes, yet, for bears. Let’s set the scene, Paddington arrived in the UK when he was 6 years old. He was joined by Aunt Lucy when he was 10 and since then they have been living in the UK. Paddington is now 14 years old, having lived in the UK for 7 years. Aunt Lucy has been looking after Paddington since her arrival and has herself been living in the UK for 4 years. They continue to live with the Browns.

Paddington and Aunt Lucy should consider an application under the Immigration Rules Appendix FM: family members. EX.1(a). which provides that:

“(i) the applicant has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child who-

(aa) is under the age of 18 years, or was under the age of 18 years when the applicant was first granted leave on the basis that this paragraph applied;

(bb) is in the UK;

(cc) is a British Citizen or has lived in the UK continuously for at least the 7 years immediately preceding the date of application; and

(ii) taking into account their best interests as a primary consideration, it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK.”

To qualify Aunt Lucy will need to show that she has a parental relationship with Paddington. The fact that she is his aunt rather than his parent does not preclude her from having a “parental relationship” with Paddington. The meaning of Parental relationship has not been defined by statute but under caselaw:

“It is not necessary for an individual to have “parental responsibility” in law for there to exist a parental relationship…..whether a person who is not a biological parent is in a “parental relationship” with a child for the purposes of s.117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 depends on the individual circumstances and whether the role that individual plays establishes he or she has “stepped into the shoes” of a parent.”

R (on the application of RK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (s.117B(6); “parental relationship” (IJR) [2016] UKUT 31 (IAC)

The next consideration is Paddington’s circumstances; he is clearly under 18 years, is in the UK and has been living here continuously for 7 years preceding their application. The Home Office is further required to consider Paddington’s interests as “primary consideration”. Unfortunately, satisfaction of the above requirements is not enough.

The most difficult aspect of our loveable bear’s application is the issue of whether “it would not be reasonable to expect the child (bear) to leave the UK”. Appendix FM EX1(a) (ii) as noted above has been the subject of considerable caselaw. The Home Office’s definition of “reasonable” is akin to the story of Paddington in that it is often, in my experience, unrealistic. It is therefore crucial that Paddington submits good evidence of his integration in the UK. This can be school reports and statements from the Browns. In some cases, a Psychologist or an Independent Social Worker’s report may be helpful. It is equally important to provide evidence of the likely harm Paddington will be subject to if returned to Peru. Reports on the stability of the country, treatment of children and its education system will likely be relevant. It is for Paddington to provide evidence and persuade the Home office of his case, so he must prepare it well. Evidence and legal representations should complement each other; apply the law to the facts.

With any luck, Paddington and Aunt Lucy will be granted leave to remain in the UK, leaving them to live happily ever after or at least until they are next required to extend their leave to remain which should be before their leave expires in 30 months’ time. 

I would like to give credit for the idea of the above to Free Movement (www.freemovement.org.uk) where it explored Paddington in the context of Asylum and hostile environment in immigration.