Appeal in the Upper Tribunal
27. At the hearing before me I put it to Mr Norton that my understanding of section 117C was that it applied only in deportation cases, whereas this was a removal case. Mr Norton agreed that he was in some difficulty with the wording of section 117C. His submission was, however, that it was implicit within section 117C that it could apply in circumstances such as those of the appellant, although he agreed that there was no authority to that effect. 28. Mr Anyene submitted that section 117C did not apply and that the judge’s determination should stand.
- DETERMINATION AND REASONS
- Basis for Respondent’s Decision
- Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal before the First-tier Tribunal
- Appeal in the First-tier Tribunal
- YM (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- The Secretary of State’s appeal
- Appeal in the Upper Tribunal
- Legislative framework
- (1) This Part applies where a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts—
- (2) In considering the public interest question, the court or tribunal must (in particular) have regard—
- (3) In subsection (2), “the public interest question” means the question of whether an interference with a person’s right to respect for private and family life is justified under Article 8(2).
- (1) In this Part—“Article 8” means Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
- (2) In this Part, “foreign criminal” means a person—
- (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), a person subject to an order under—
- (4) In this Part, references to a person who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of a certain length of time—
- Consideration and findings
- KMO (section 117 – unduly harsh) Nigeria
- DECISION