Home Office guidance on EEA public policy/security decisions updated

Last week the Home Office updated its guidance on EEA decisions on grounds of public policy and security. The amended policy seeks to clarify some of the previous text and highlights further implications of the EEA Regulations 2016. Extended family members The Home Office now requires extended family members who satisfy regulation 8 of the EEA Regulations 2016 to have valid documentation confirming their right of residence. Formal applications and acquisition of residence rights for such family members will be essential. Although this has always been the practice for extended family members, the Home Office now has added a specific mention in the policy guidance. Dependants The Home Office is now…

29th November 2017 By Sairah Javed

Court of Appeal re-affirms country guidance cases are not box ticking

In FY (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1853, the Court of Appeal refused the deportation of a Somali national on the basis that he would face a real risk of living in circumstances falling below the Article 3 threshold if deported. In doing so, the Court of Appeal re-affirmed that country guidance cases should be construed sensibly. A tribunal’s findings should not be set aside for failing to treat the considerations as a tick box exercise. The judgment itself was short and sharp, with the Court of Appeal showing a distinct dislike for some of the Secretary of State’s arguments, describing them as variously “unhelpful”, “of…

28th November 2017 By Bilaal Shabbir

FTT slapped down for ignoring Immigration Rules in deportation case

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 1782 the Court of Appeal found that a First-tier Tribunal decision to allow a Jamaican man’s deportation appeal under Article 8 contained a material error of law and set it aside. In criminal deportation appeals, the court found, the FTT must do more than “simply” engage in a Razgar assessment under Article 8. A finding that deportation would be disproportionate, without considering the substance of paragraphs 398 and 399 of the Immigration Rules, is a material error of law. No room for “unstructured Article 8 analysis” AM is a Jamaican man who was convicted of a number of…

23rd November 2017 By John Vassiliou

High Court: potential homelessness not a justification for detention

The High Court in R (MS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2797 (Admin) has found that in circumstances where a person would have no option but to stay on the streets after release from detention, the Home Office has a duty under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to provide them with suitable bail accommodation with reasonable speed. Potential homelessness cannot be a reason for prolonged detention. The factual background MS, an alcoholic, had been convicted of various criminal offences in Poland. In November 2015 he came to work in the UK but was “controlled by men who took most of his wages…

15th November 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Court of Appeal upholds deportation of rapist with permanent residence

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal against deportation of a man with permanent residence in Kamki v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1715. Mr Kamki had been seeking to prevent his removal to Cameroon following imprisonment for rape. UK residence and criminal conviction A Cameroon national, Mr Kamki moved to the UK exercising EU free movement rights to join his wife, a Spanish citizen (using the Surinder Singh immigration route). He obtained a permanent residence card in August 2010, but subsequently separated from his wife. In October 2011 Mr Kamki held a house party, during which he sexually assaulted and raped a woman. Mr…

10th November 2017 By Clare Duffy

Man in immigration detention for 45 months loses judicial review

Taskiran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2679 (Admin) is a sad case. A web of domestic immigration law and international agreements have resulted in Mr Taskiran undergoing almost four years of immigration detention, which the court found legal. Mr Taskiran was brought to the United Kingdom from Turkey aged 13. In March 1994 his family, including his refugee father, were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. However, Mr Taskiran became addicted to crack cocaine. This seems to have fuelled a long history of offending: between August 1994 and January 2014, he had 27 convictions for 54 offences. In January 2014 he was convicted of rape and sexual…

7th November 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Hostile environment backfiring on the Home Office, Chief Inspector finds

The hostile environment policy is making it more difficult for the Home Office to keep track of foreign national offenders and could even push up crime, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has said. David Bolt’s inspection of the Home Office’s management of non-detained foreign national offenders reports that in line with the idea of a ‘hostile environment’, many FNOs were not receiving any assistance with somewhere to live. As a result, the Home Office did not have a fixed address for some FNOs at the point they were released. The hostile environment is a package of measures, such as limiting access to housing and healthcare, designed to make…

2nd November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Host state handles the asylum claim if Dublin III transfer takes too long

Majid Shiri, an Iranian national, arrived in Austria through Bulgaria in 2015. He made an asylum claim in Bulgaria in February of that year but claimed asylum in Austria the following month. The Austrian authorities asked Bulgaria to take Mr Shiri back under the Dublin III Regulation, which ‘take back request’ Bulgaria accepted. In July the Austrian authorities decided his removal to Bulgaria was lawful, a decision then annulled “on account of Mr Shiri’s vulnerability owing to his state of health”. This decision was reinstated in September. By then, Mr Shiri was in a position to argue that Austra had become the member state responsible for examining his asylum application because…

1st November 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Strasbourg approves deportation of Nigerian drug dealer

Ndidi v the United Kingdom (Application no. 41215/14) had the beginnings of a tabloid splash. A Nigerian national convicted of drug dealing, who had lived in the UK since the age of two, sought to block his deportation by recourse to foreign judges. The European Court of Human Rights disappointed would-be headline writers by approving the Secretary of State’s decision to deport Ifeanyi Chukwu Ndidi due to his long and escalating history of criminality. Crimes and deportation order Mr Ndidi entered the UK with his family just before his second birthday. He first got in trouble with the law when he was 12 years old, and continued to be throughout his teenage…

31st October 2017 By Clare Duffy

AG: permanent residence needed before ‘enhanced protection’ kicks in

Today saw the release of the Advocate General’s Opinion in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) joined cases of B v Land Baden-Württemberg C-316/16 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero C-424/16. The issue in these cases concerns the entitlement of European citizens to the ‘enhanced’ level of protection against deportation when they have committed crimes. Where an individual is entitled to such a level of protection – broadly attained following ten years’ residence in a European country – the member state must show that there exist imperative grounds of public security to justify their expulsion. For a detailed look at the law…

24th October 2017 By Nick Nason

European Court of Human Rights condemns Spain for collectively deporting migrants

In ND & NT v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the expulsion of two sub-Saharan migrants from a set of barriers surrounding the Spanish territory of Melilla breached their rights under Article 4 of Protocol 4 ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions of aliens) and Article 13 ECHR (right to an effective remedy). Around this time two years ago, I worked on the intervention in this case at the AIRE Centre under Nuala Mole (who has just been named the FT Legal Innovator of the Year) and Markella Papadouli. This just shows how long it takes from the start of the legal process at the European Court…

10th October 2017 By Paul Erdunast

CJEU on registration certificates and exclusion orders: implications for practice

Ovidiu-Mihaita Petrea emigrated from Romania to Greece, ready to build a new life there. However, he made a big mistake: he committed robbery and was sentenced by a Greek criminal court in 2011. Exclusion order and return Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 states that EU member states may limit free movement of EU citizens on grounds of public security, public policy, or public health. Accordingly, the Greek government ordered Mr Petrea’s return to Romania on 30 October 2011. His name was entered into the list of “undesirable aliens” – barring him from entry to Greece until 30 October 2018. Mr Petrea had been informed, in writing and in a language…

5th October 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Hospital orders and deportation

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v KE (Nigeria) [2017] EWCA Civ 382, the Court of Appeal tackled the narrow, but important, issue as to whether a non-British citizen who is convicted and sentenced to a hospital order with restrictions under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is “a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years” for the purposes of section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that the public interest requires his deportation unless there are very compelling circumstances that mean that it would be a disproportionate interference with his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on…

4th October 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Tribunal: Home Office must prove present risk to deport EU citizens

In the very recent case of Arranz (EEA Regulations – deportation – test) [2017] UKUT 294 (IAC) President McCloskey set out the correct approach to EU law deportations. The official headnote instructs us: (i) The burden of proving that a person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society under Regulation 21(5)(c) of the EEA Regulations rests on the Secretary of State. (ii) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. (iii) Membership of an organisation proscribed under the laws of a foreign country does not without more satisfy the aforementioned test. (iv) The “Bouchereau” exception is no longer good law: CS…

28th September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Leaked immigration document suggests huge rise in European criminal deportation after Brexit

The recently leaked government immigration proposals indicate that European nationals who commit crime in the UK will be subject to the same automatic deportation rules as non-European nationals after Brexit. The UK Borders Act 2007 imposes a legal duty on the Home Office to bring deportation proceedings against any foreign national convicted of a crime and sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. These are referred to as “automatic deportation”: see section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. There is currently an exception for those resident under EU law (section 33(4)) but this will end with Brexit when EU law ceases to apply. 12 month sentences are imposed…

13th September 2017 By Nick Nason

What is the law governing the deportation of EU nationals?

Where a European national commits a crime in the UK and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, they will often be subject to deportation proceedings. The protections afforded to them (and to British nationals who commit crime in European countries) are contained within a European Directive (2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004), and brought into domestic law by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. We consider the protections afforded to European nationals against expulsion from the UK, the circumstances in which the protection can be invoked (and, arguably, lost), and consider the future of deportation law for European nationals if and when the UK leaves the Union. European rules…

23rd August 2017 By Nick Nason

Operation Nexus police/immigration joint working unsuccessfully challenged in High Court

In The Centre for Advice On Individual Rights In Europe v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2017] EWHC 1878 (Admin) (21 July 2017) the excellent AIRE centre brought a challenge to the way Operation Nexus operates in respect of European and EEA nationals. Operation Nexus has been covered previously by Free Movement, most recently reporting on the belated released of guidance, with calls for both evidence and funding for this recent challenge publicised via the blog. What is Nexus? As detailed in previous writing on the subject, and as set out in this judgment [6] Operation Nexus has three strands or elements; only the first…

10th August 2017 By Nick Nason

Court of Appeal reiterates effect of orders in the family courts on deportation decisions

The Court of Appeal in GD (Ghana) [2017] EWCA Civ 1126 explained once again what effect residence orders granted by a Family Court have on immigration matters, and criticised both representatives in the First-Tier Tribunal for failing to put the relevant law to the Tribunal. The ‘residence order’ regime has now been replaced with ‘child arrangement orders’ by the Children and Families Act 2014, but this does not change the effect of family proceedings on immigration proceedings. Residence orders are made by a Family Court and determine with whom a child subject to the order will live, and will usually last until the child is 16 years of age. A decision-maker…

8th August 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Court of Appeal considers revocation of deportation order where deportee returns early in breach of the order

In SSHD v SU [2017] EWCA Civ 1069 (20 July 2017) the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the unusual case of an individual who had been deported from the UK, returned in breach of the order, and then applied for its revocation having established a private and family life during the subsequent period of unlawful residence. The case clarifies the applicable rules in revocation cases and provides further evidence, if it were needed, of the complexity of the relevant rules, with two differently constituted tribunals failing to consider two key (albeit very recently instituted) provisions. Facts In February 1998 the Secretary of State (SSHD) made a deportation order…

7th August 2017 By Nick Nason

What is the law on the deportation of non EU foreign criminals and their human rights?

Deportation proceedings pit the rights of the individual against those of the state, appointed guardian of the public interest. And as very clearly stated in primary legislation, the deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest. The relevant law in this area is rent through with politics, shifting relentlessly with headlines, changes to rules or legislation, and the latest decisions of the courts. The shifts over the past 5 years have been unremitting. We consider the recent history of deportation law in the UK, the individuals who will be subject to these rules, and the arguments available to those seeking to challenge decisions to deport them. A brief and…

27th July 2017 By Nick Nason

Secretary of State criticised by Court of Appeal for “confused” and “messy” legal analysis in deportation case

The Home Office has been criticised by the Court of Appeal for its “confused” and “messy” legal analysis in the matter of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mosira [2017] EWCA Civ 407. The Secretary of State sought to apply refugee cessation provisions to a non-refugee deportee; rigidly sticking to its increasingly untenable position throughout the proceedings. The individual – a Zimbabwean national – had never in fact been granted refugee status but was bestowed it on a technicality for the purposes of family re-unification. By the time the Secretary of State had realised her errors, it was too late as far as the Court of Appeal was…

26th June 2017 By Rebecca Carr

Supreme Court rules “deport first, appeal later” is unfair and unlawful

In R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court has struck down “deport first, appeal later” certificates for two foreign criminals. The Home Office had made use of new rules in the Immigration Act 2014 which force some appellants to leave the UK before their appeal takes place, meaning that they are not present to give evidence. Of 1,175 cases in which these powers have so far been used, only 72 individuals attempted to pursue an appeal from abroad. None succeeded. The “deport first, appeal later” rules were originally applied only to foreign criminals facing deportation. However, the Immigration Act…

14th June 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal: “Particularly where children are concerned, there is no such thing as an average case”

By the tone of this judgment, the Court of Appeal in SSHD v RF (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 124 appears to be suffering from deportation fatigue, considering ‘yet another case’ [1] involving a foreign national criminal appealing against a decision to deport. It is testament to the high stakes involved, both politically for the Secretary of State, and individually for the foreign national subjects, that these cases are so regularly reaching the highest courts in the land. Exceptional vs Compelling Under Immigration Rule 398, a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to longer than 4 years imprisonment must show ‘exceptional circumstances’ if he or she is to outweigh the public interest in deportation….

25th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Family life succeeds in defeating s.94B ‘deport first, appeal later’ certification

The judgment in OO (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 338 is one of a series of cases challenging the lawfulness of the certification regime under s.94B Nationality Immigration Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). The issue has been considered several times on Free Movement, and judgment is still awaited on the lead test case of Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020, heard by the Supreme Court in March. This case is notable for its treatment of family life issues in respect of a (potentially) temporary absence from the United Kingdom whilst an appeal is ongoing, and a…

15th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Tribunal gives guidance on revocation of deportation orders after 10 years

Official headnote: (i) In cases involving convictions for an offence for which the person was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 4 years, the Secretary of State’s policy, as expressed in paragraph 391(a) of the Immigration Rules, is that the public interest does not require continuation of a deportation order after a period of ten years has elapsed. (ii) However, paragraph 391(a) allows the Secretary of State to consider on a case by case basis whether a deportation order should be maintained. The mere fact of past convictions is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain an order if the ‘prescribed period’ has elapsed. Strong public policy reasons…

28th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office belatedly issues guidance on Operation Nexus

Operation Nexus was officially launched in November 2012, a law enforcement initiative aimed at deporting more ‘high harm’ foreign nationals. It has been criticised on many occasions for its opacity, and the lack of any publicly available policies which govern its implementation. See, for example, our previous post: Operation Nexus for dummies: happening now, in our time. Last month, 4 ½ years into its operation, the Home Office finally issued some guidance. What is Operation Nexus? According to the note, there are broadly two strands to Operation Nexus: Nexus Custody – Immigration Officers (IOs) deployed to designated police custody suites to examine all foreign nationals who are arrested. Cases identified as…

24th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Court of Appeal decides Supreme Court ruling in Hesham Ali is already redundant

Well, that did not take long. The Court of Appeal has in the case of NE-A (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 239 decided that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 is confined to cases in which the Immigration Rules are applied and does not apply to cases decided under the statutory human rights considerations introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. As background, in 2012 the Government introduced new Immigration Rules which in effect set a series of strict quasi-statutory tests to be applied in immigration cases in which human rights were pleaded. The intended effect was to reduce the…

18th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives guidance on meaning of ‘unlawful residence’

The case of Akinyemi v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 236 concerns the deportation of a man born and raised in the United Kingdom, a country he has never left. It provides valuable guidance on the meaning of the word ‘unlawful’ within the context of deportation provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and shows just how far the law has moved in this area. Facts Remi Akinyemi is a man for whom one struggles to feel any great sympathy. Over the course of a prolific criminal career he accumulated 20 convictions and was found guilty of, amongst other offences, causing death by dangerous driving, possession of heroin with intent to supply, and…

11th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Deport first, appeal later certificates, judicial reviews and fresh claims considered by Upper Tribunal

In the judicial review case of Ayache, R (on the application of) v SSHD (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 122 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers the lawfulness of a decision to certify a human rights claim under s.94B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. For those not already aware, s.94B gives effect to the government’s “Deport First, Appeal Later” policy, which was upheld as lawful by the Court of Appeal in Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020. The test case was, however, subject to an onward to appeal which was heard by the Supreme Court last month. Judgment is awaited. Brief Facts The Applicant in the…

4th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Updated Home Office guidance on criminality in article 8 ECHR cases

Source: Criminality guidance in article 8 ECHR cases – GOV.UK The change log says: Additional sections to reflect the Supreme Court judgment in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] and the European Court of Justice judgement in Ruiz Zambrano (European citizenship) [2011] ECJ C-34/09. On Hesham Ali, as would be expected, the guidance notes that the Supreme Court did not consider the effect of the introduction of statutory considerations. On Zambrano, the guidance refers to the case of CS v UK C-304/14 and then goes on: This means that where a derivative right of residence is established, deportation must be considered under regulation 19(3)(b) and regulation…

1st March 2017 By Colin Yeo

New case on two year reconsideration period for EU deportations

A new tribunal case on EU deportations. The headnote: Neither a decision to make a deportation order nor a notice of intention to make a deportation order triggers the two year period specified in regulation 24(5) of the EEA Regulations. The two year period begins upon the making of the deportation order itself. Regulation 24(5) provides for automatic reconsideration of deportation decisions if a person receives a deportation order but it is not actioned for a two year period. It reads: Where such a deportation order is made against a person but he is not removed under the order during the two year period beginning on the date on which…

23rd December 2016 By Colin Yeo

Hesham Ali and Makhlouf: What is the correct approach to determining deportation appeals?

In the cases of Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 and Makhlouf [2016] UKSC 59 the Supreme Court has, finally, given guidance the correct approach to the determination of appeals against deportation decisions. Both the appeals were dismissed and the Home Office prevailed; but that is not the whole story and we have to look at the judgments carefully to understand the proper approach. Word is that the delay between the hearing of Ali and Makhlouf in January 2016 and handing down of the judgment last week was due to disagreements between the justices. Those disagreements were ultimately largely resolved, it would seem. Lord Reed gives the leading judgment in Ali with a…

24th November 2016 By Colin Yeo

Supreme Court dismisses deportation appeals

The Supreme Court has handed down the long awaited judgments in Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 59 on the impact of deportation on affected children and Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 on the weight to be given to the Immigration Rules in an appeal against a deportation order. More detailed analysis to follow, but for now the press releases… UPDATE: see full analysis: Ali and Makhlouf: What is the correct approach to determining deportation appeals? Makhlouf: BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL This is an appeal against an order for the deportation of a foreign criminal who has children who are…

16th November 2016 By Colin Yeo

EU deportation appeals do not include consideration of prisoner transfer

The European Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA has replaced the framework previously set out in the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, itself supplemented by the Protocol of 18 December 1997, to provide the framework within which a request may be made to another Member State for the transfer of an EEA national sentenced in the United Kingdom to serve that sentence in his own country. In the United Kingdom context, it is a precondition for making a transfer request that there be in place a deportation order. A decision to make a deportation order is not a decision to transfer a serving prisoner to another Member State…

17th October 2016 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives (more) guidance on deportation cases

The Court of Appeal has given further guidance on the convoluted and badly drafted statutory presumptions on human rights in UK law. Trying to make sense of interlocking provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007, the Immigration Rules as amended (and amended and amended) and the Immigration Act 2014, the court concludes that the latter is so badly drafted that it must considered to be a drafting error. Specifically, the court finds that as drafted the Act gives greater protection to more serious criminals than less serious ones, which must be a mistake. The key provision is subsection (3) of section 117C of the 2014 Act. The whole section reads…

3rd August 2016 By Colin Yeo

Serial criminal to be deported despite impact on his children

If you attempt to murder someone with a gun, and after release from prison for attempted murder (a sentence of over four years), are caught again with a loaded gun and imprisoned, do not be surprised that only the most exceptional circumstances will save you from deportation. This was all in the context of running a drug-dealing ‘business’. The main point in the Home Office appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v CT (Vietnam) [2016] EWCA Civ 488 concerns the Article 8 argument which was rejected. Lady Justice Rafferty stated that the effect on the children of having only one parent subsequently remaining in the UK was not enough to pass…

15th July 2016 By Paul Erdunast

Nkomo (Deportation: 2014 rights of appeal : Zimbabwe) [2016] UKUT 285 (IAC)

1. The No 3 Commencement Order of the 2014 Act, SI 2014/2771, extends the new appeals provisions to identified persons, but the amendment of it in SI 2014/2928 further extends those provisions to identified decisions. 2. In consequence, a person against whom a deportation decision was made in the period 10 November 2014 – 5 April 2015 may have no right of appeal if the decisions actually made carry rights of appeal only under the new appeals provisions. (Note: A further change was made to the commencement provision with effect from 2 March 2015, which did not fall for consideration on the facts of this case.) Fascinating. So glad that…

27th June 2016 By Colin Yeo

Johnson (deportation – 4 years imprisonment : Sierra Leone) [2016] UKUT 282 (IAC)

When a foreign offender has been convicted of an offence for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment of at least 4 years and has successfully appealed on human rights grounds, this does not prevent the Secretary of State from relying on the conviction for the purposes of paragraph 398(a) of the Immigration Rules and s.117C of the 2002 Act if and when he re-offends even if the later offence results in less than 4 years imprisonment or, indeed, less than 12 months imprisonment. The Home Office may have a second bite at the cherry. Source: Johnson (deportation – 4 years imprisonment : Sierra Leone) [2016] UKUT 282 (IAC) (13…

27th June 2016 By Colin Yeo

Stop deportation without fair trial: funding sought for challenge to Operation Nexus

The excellent AIRE Centre are fundraising for a challenge to Operation Nexus, the joint Met Police and Home Office initiative that allows people to be deported from the UK without any convictions. It is not just foreign nationals that are being targeted but also EEA nationals. We’ve covered Operation Nexus several times previously on Free Movement. It is a very concerning project. You can find out more and donate here but it has to be soon.

9th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal overturns President’s decision to allow deportation appeal

BL (Jamaica) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 357 is essentially an unhelpful judgment for convicted criminals arguing against deportation orders on Article 8 grounds. It overturned a McCloskey J and UTJ Perkins decision in the Upper Tribunal that allowed the appeal from a refusal by the First Tier Tribunal, criticising the UT judges for failing to follow the guidance in of SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State [2014] 1 WLR 908 and MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State [2014] 1 WLR 544: The UT did not follow the holdings of this Court, in the two authorities that I have referred to at the…

29th April 2016 By Chris McWatters