Upper Tribunal on the interpretation of Section 117B(6)(b) and how a “reasonable to leave” construction can be more favourable than an Article 8 proportionality exercise

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53,  the Upper Tribunal in JG (s117B(6) : “reasonable to leave” UK) Turkey (Rev 1) [2019] UKUT 72 (IAC) (15 February 2019), considered the proper construction of Section 117B(6) with the surprsing result that on the facts, an Appellant who was found to be, “both dishonest and unscrupulous, each to a high degree…… flagrantly defied the law of the United Kingdom by overstaying her leave for a large number of years”, succeeded in her appeal.

 

Continue reading

Part 1 after KO(Nigeria): The Upper Tribunal weighs in on the unduly harsh test

“We make no apology for dwelling upon NA (Pakistan)”,  state the Upper Tribunal in RA (s.117C: “unduly harsh”; offence: seriousness) Iraq [2019] UKUT 123 (IAC) (4 March 2019) in a seeming mammoth judgement setting out, breaking down and applying the law relating to deportation of foreign nationals following the Supreme Court’s decision in KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 53

 

For those who have over the years managed to keep a close eye on caselaw relating to deportation of foreign nationals, the Upper Tribunal judgment is a “welcome” reminder of already known caselaw and principles. Those yet to catch up, are encouraged to do so. There is no escaping the avalanche of caselaw.

 

To add to matters, the Upper Tribunal chose on the same day, 11 April 2019, to publish yet more caselaw on deportation: MS (s.117C(6): “very compelling circumstances”) Philippines [2019] UKUT 122 (IAC) (4 March 2019).  As per paragraph 1 of RA : “In this appeal and that of MS (s.117C(6): “very compelling circumstances”) Philippines [2019] UKUT 00122 (IAC), which was heard consecutively, we consider how section 117C (Article 8: Additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals) should be construed, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53”.

 

Continue reading

Part 2 after KO(Nigeria): “Very Compelling Circumstances” require regard to the seriousness of the offence and relevant public interest considerations

The blog post “ Part 1 after KO(Nigeria)”,  separately looks at how the Upper Tribunal in RA (s.117C: “unduly harsh”; offence: seriousness) Iraq [2019] UKUT 123 (IAC) (4 March 2019) set out its considerations on the unduly harsh test following KO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53. This first post therefore has regard to  the  issues arising in KO(Nigeria) as well as  setting out the extract provisions in “Section 117C Article 8: additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals”.

 

In MS (s.117C(6): “very compelling circumstances”) Philippines [2019] UKUT 122 (IAC) (4 March 2019), the Upper Tribunal considered whether paragraphs 20 to 22 of the judgment of Lord Carnwath in KO (Nigeria) changed the way in which courts and tribunals must approach their task under section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

 

Continue reading

Court of Appeal approves Chege on “persistent offender”, sets out when a foreign criminal is socially and culturally integrated in the UK

The appeal in Binbuga (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 551 (04 April 2019) concerned the following:

 

 

  • whether TB was a “foreign criminal” as defined in Section 117D(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;

  • if so, whether Exception 1 in Section 117C(4) NIAA applies and

  • if not, whether the “very compelling circumstances” test is met

Continue reading

Adult Zambrano primary carer case succeeds despite Court of Appeal finding test on adult dependents a very demanding one

A person may qualify for a derivative right of residence as the primary carer of a British citizen child or British dependent adult, where requiring the primary carer to leave the UK would force that British citizen to leave the European Economic Area (EEA), ie a Zambrano case. The 2016 EEA regulations do not impose an age limit on the relevant British citizen who is dependent upon their primary carer

 

Continue reading