The Court of Appeal’s recent decisions in Warsame v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 16 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vassallo  EWCA Civ 13 considered the circumstances in which reliance can be placed upon enhanced levels of protection provided within the Citizen’s Directive in relation to expulsion of EEA nationals subject to deportation proceedings.
The central question in Vassallo was whether the Tribunal was correct in law to find that Mr Vassallo had acquired a right of permanent residence. The Court of Appeal having full regard to the Citizen’s Directive, relevant CJEU caselaw and the 2006 EEA Regulations, decided that having regard to the character of the EEA national’s residence in the UK, after a historical accrual of the requisite 5years, and despite Mr Vassalo having resided in the UK for over 50years, no right of permanent residence could be relied upon.
The Home Office have recently been on a downward streak in the Court of Appeal in terms of issues in relation to EEA law and in particular EEA deportations.
Read my post regarding the recent judgments from the Court of Appeal on the issue in the cases of:
- Agho v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1198
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Straszewski  EWCA Civ 1245
- AA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1249
The Home Office has within the last year ( more so since the coming into force of the Immigration Act 2014) increasingly sought to put in place measures to deport as many foreign criminals as possible from the UK but in so doing, seem to be deliberately blurring the line between the relevant applicable law and principles that apply when deporting a foreign national criminal as opposed to an EEA national criminal subject to deportation. There has, for example, been a deliberate mirroring of the Section 94B certification, which applies to non- EEA foreign national criminals and the Regulation 24AA Certification that applies to EEA nationals similarly subject to deportation – the intention being to deny deportees an in – country right of appeal. In terms of relevant litigation in this regards for both categories of deportees, the Secretary has so far been winning, as in Kiarie, R (On the Application Of) and Another v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1020 in relation to section 94B and as regards Regulation 24AA, of which judgment was handed down by the Upper Tribunal on 26 November 2015, following a judicial review claim. The judgment is not yet in the public domain.