Case No. UKUT-00515-(IAC)

of the immigration decision would breach the United Kingdom ' s obligations under the Refugee Convention or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being incompatible with the appellant ' s Convention rights. Part 5A of the 2002 Act, introduced by section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014 and in force since 25 July 2014 , establishes a new regime under the rubric “Article 8 of the ECHR: Public Interest Considerations”. Section 117A provides: “(1) This Part applies where a court or tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts— (a) breaches a person ' s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, and (b) as a result would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. (2) In considering the public interest question, the court or tribunal must (in particular) have regard— (a) in all cases, to the considerations listed in section 117B, and (b) in cases concerning the deportation of foreign criminals, to the considerations listed in section 117C. (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). ” Section 117B, embraced by the cross heading “Article 8: Public Interest Considerations Applicable i n A ll C ases”, provides: “ (1) The maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest. (2) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are able to speak English, because persons who can speak English— (a) are less of a burden on taxpayers, and (b) are better able to integrate into society. (3) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are financially independent, because such persons— (a) are not a burden on taxpayers, and (b) are better able to integrate into society. (4) Little weight should be given to— (a) a private life, or (b) a relationship formed with a qualifying partner, that is established by a p erson at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully. (5) Little weight should be given to a private life established by a person at a time when the person ' s immigration status is precarious. (6) In the case of a person who is not liable to deportation, the public interest does not require the person ' s removal where— (a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and (b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom. ” The subject matter of section 117C is “ Article 8: Additional Considerations I n C ases I nvolving Foreign Criminals ”. Section 117C does not arise for consideration in these appeals. 4. The trigger for the application of the various provisions assembled in Part 5A of the 2002 Act is a decision “ made under the Immigration Acts ”. These latter words are defined in section 61 (2) of the UK Borders Act 2007: “A reference (in any enactment, including one passed or made before this Act) to “the Immigration Acts” is to– (a) the Immigration Act 1971, (b) the Immigration Act 1988, (c) the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, (d) the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, (e) the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 [cf section 10: removal directions] , (f) the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, (g) the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19), (h) the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (c. 13) , (i) this Act, and (j) t he Immigration Act 2014.” I w ould also mention two material provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. First, by virtue of section 1 and Schedule 1 to the Act, one of the Convention r ights p rotected under domestic law is Article 8. Se cond, by section 6(1) : “ It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.” This completes the statutory framework relevant to this appeal. T he First Issue 5. I s the application of sections 117A and 11 7B of the 2002 Act confined to an appeal under section 84(1)(c)? The argument of Mr Malik on behalf of the Appellant drew attention to the cluster of statutory provisions formed by sections 82, 84 and 86. He linked the words “ is required to determine ” in section 117A to the words “ must determine ” in section 86(2). He also sought to forge a nexus between section 117A(1)(b) and section 84(1)(c). He contended that the exercise of considering all of the provisions belonging to the statutory context in play impels to an affirmative answer to the question posted above. It was further submitted that the criteria enshrined in paragraph 276ADE and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules are clear and objective, leaving no scope for applying the section 117B considerations. 6. It was further argued that i n cases of the present kind it is not the Secr etary of State’s decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom which is challenged on Article 8 grounds: rather, it is the consequence of the decision, or the further action taken via removal directions , which is objectionable. Mr Malik submitted that t he construction for which the Appellants contend is not undermined by either