Here are key UK cases that illustrate how courts interpret and apply Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which places a duty on the Home Office to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when making immigration decisions:

This section imposes a legal duty on the Secretary of State and immigration officers to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK when carrying out immigration functions.

• Landmark case on children's rights in immigration.
   
• The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration, though not the only one.
   
• Courts must consider children's rights independently, not just as part of parents' claims.
   

“It is not enough to pay lip service to the principle of best interests; it must be at the forefront of the decision-maker’s mind.”
 

Set the foundation for how Section 55 must be applied in deportation and removal cases involving children.

• Focused on the “7-year rule”: children who have lived in the UK for 7+ years are likely to have established significant private life ties.
   
• Court held that such children should not be removed unless there are strong public interest reasons.
   

• Reinforced that 7 years of residence by a child creates a strong presumption against removal.
   
• The best interests of the child may outweigh immigration control even where parents have precarious status.
   

• The Upper Tribunal reiterated that a full assessment of the best interests of the child must be conducted.
   
• Each case must consider the individual child’s circumstances, not just general policies.
   

Clarifies that boilerplate statements by the Home Office that "the best interests of the child have been considered" are not enough without evidence-based analysis.

• Concerned the removal of a parent of British-citizen children.
   
• The Court accepted that while children’s best interests were to remain, these could sometimes be outweighed by public interest in immigration control.
   

Balanced ZH (Tanzania) by showing that children’s interests, though primary, are not absolute.

• Emphasised that Section 55 creates a statutory duty, not a discretionary one.
   
• A failure to actively consider the best interests of the child undermines the lawfulness of a decision.
   

Highlights the procedural duty under Section 55 — decisions made without proper regard to children's welfare can be quashed.