Article 8: clause by clause

Clauses 17–20 are Part 2 of the bill, "Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". None of them creates a stand-alone regime: all four amend an existing Act — the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (clause 17 amends section 113 and related sections; clauses 18–20 amend Part 5A, where the "instructions to courts" on Article 8 live).

Article 8 of the Convention itself does not change — the bill changes how UK courts and tribunals must apply it in immigration cases. The government has published an ECHR Memorandum with its own assessment of compatibility with the Convention.

What clause 17 changes down the chain (subsections (3)–(7)):

• 17(3): a sponsor claim cannot be declared "inadmissible" under section 80A — "Subsection (1) does not apply to a sponsor human rights claim".
• 17(4): the sponsor's appeal also covers the decision about the family member seeking entry.
• 17(5): these appeals are excluded from the accelerated timeframe of section 86B (used in deportation cases).
• 17(6): a sponsor claim cannot be certified as "clearly unfounded" under section 94(3) — so the sponsor's in-country right of appeal cannot be removed by that mechanism.
• 17(7): the appeal is treated as "abandoned" if the family member is granted leave to enter or remain — the goal is achieved, there is nothing left to argue.

This is a procedural clause: it sets out who claims and appeals, and how. It contains no income or language conditions — those are set (and will remain set) by Appendix FM and future rules.

117AA(5): what does NOT count as such dependency on its own:

• financial dependency;
• illness or infirmity — except where all three conditions are met at once: the person is incapacitated to the point of needing constant care, that care can be provided by this specific relative, and the person would not receive adequate care unless they were in the same country;
• emotional support;
• living in a country affected by war/conflict/instability (and the relative's concern for the person's welfare).

✅ An important nuance — 117AA(6): "Nothing in subsection (5) prevents a court or tribunal from considering the factors mentioned in that subsection when determining the public interest question". The same factors (illness, war, financial support) can still be weighed at the second step — the public-interest balance. The door is not fully closed.

The headline extension: today section 117C is about "foreign criminals". Clause 20 rewrites it for everyone liable to deportation (new s.117D(1A): under section 3(5)(a) or 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971 — which includes deportation "conducive to the public good" without a conviction, and family members of a person being deported).

The three sets (117C(4)–(6)):

• (4) A long life in the UK: lawfully resident for most of their life + socially and culturally integrated + "very significant obstacles" to integration in the destination country. All three together.
• (5) Partner/child: a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner, or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on them would be "unduly harsh".
• (6) Anything else: "very compelling circumstances" — other circumstances giving an Article 8 claim at least as strong as sets (4) or (5).

The more serious the offence, its circumstances and its impact on society — the greater the public interest in deportation (117C(2)): the gravity of the case is weighed directly against the "exceptional circumstances".

• "normally" (117AA) — family life is "normally limited" to the core family: when is a case not "normal"?
• "additional element of dependency (beyond normal emotional ties)" — where is the line of "normal ties"?
• "disproportionate" (117C(1)) — the entire deportation framework hangs on this word;
• "unduly harsh" (117C(5)) — the phrase already exists in the current law and courts have interpreted it for years; whether the old threshold survives inside the new framework is a question for the first decisions;
• "very significant obstacles", "very significant and long-lasting adverse effect" — the thresholds for integration and for harm to a child.

So the honest formula is: the bar has been raised — by how much, the first tribunal and appellate decisions will show. Nothing applies before Royal Assent; after it, we follow the case law and update this page.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (bill 4254, HC Bill 105): 1st reading — 30 June 2026, now at 2nd reading in the House of Commons. The road ahead: committee → report → 3rd reading → House of Lords → Royal Assent. The text of clauses 17–20 can change by amendment at any stage — this breakdown matches the version introduced on 30 June 2026. We will update the page at every stage.