Case No. UKUT-00628-(IAC)

7. In refusing the appellant’s application, the respondent considered and relied upon the suitability requirements of the immigration rules under Section S-LTR and considered that he fell within S-LTR.1.5 and S-LTR.1.6 by reason of his criminal offending. “S-LTR.1.5. The presence of the applicant in the UK is not conducive to the public good because, in the view of the Secretary of State, their offending has caused serious harm or they are a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law. S-LTR.1.6. The presence of the applicant in the UK is not conducive to the public good because their conduct (including convictions which do not fall within paragraphs S-LTR.1.3. to 1.5.), character, associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to allow them to remain in the UK.” 8. In so doing, the respondent referred to the appellant’s criminal convictions and relied upon a witness statement (MG11) from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), provided by an officer working on Operation Nexus, an operation conducted in partnership with the Home Office aimed at tackling high-harm foreign nationals and immigration offenders. 9. The respondent listed the appellant’s criminal convictions, as follows: • On 11 March 2007 he was cautioned by the police for common assault against a female who was pregnant at the time. • On 2 September 2008 at Wood Green Crown Court he was convicted of two counts of possession of class A drugs (cocaine and heroin) and sentenced to a 12 month Community Order with a supervision requirement. • On 21 March 2011 at Portsmouth Crown Court he was convicted of two counts of possession of class A drugs (cocaine and heroin) and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. 10. The respondent considered that the witness statement (MG11) showed the appellant to be an individual who was funding his lifestyle through dealing class A drugs and who was well-known in the Portsmouth area and noted that the statement listed numerous occasions when the police had been called to deal with the aftermath of domestic abuse the appellant had perpetrated against his partners. 11. The respondent noted that the appellant had been convicted twice for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply (in fact the convictions were for possessing class A controlled drugs) and considered that he had a propensity to reoffend. Since he fell within S-LTR.1.5 and S-LTR.1.6 the respondent considered that the appellant could not be awarded leave on the basis of his relationships with his wife and children or on the basis of his private life in the United Kingdom. The respondent went on to consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of leave outside the immigration rules and took account of the best interests of the appellant’s children, but concluded that their best interests lay in remaining with their mother in the United Kingdom and that the appellant’s removal would not breach Article 8 of the ECHR.