Case No. UKUT-00515-(IAC)

3. All statutory references which follow are to the legislation in force at the material time. For convenience, the provisions currently in force are reproduced in the Appendix hereto. The right of appeal against immigration decisions is governed by section 82 of the 2002 Act, t he material provisions whereof we re , at the material time, these : “ (1) Where an immigration decision is made in respect o f a person he may appeal to the Tribunal. (2) In this Part “immigration decision” means— (a) refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom, (b) refusal of entry clearance, (c) refusal of a certificate of entitlement under section 10 of this Act, (d) refusal to vary a person ' s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if the result of the refusal is that the person has no leave to enter or remain, (e) variation of a person ' s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if when the variation takes effect the person has no leave to enter or remain, (f) revocation under section 76 of this Act of indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, (g) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under [section 10(1)(a), (b), (ba) or (c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (removal of person unlawfully in United Kingdom), (h) a decision that an illegal entrant is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraphs 8 to 10 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (control of entry: removal), (ha) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (removal: persons with statutorily extended leave), (i) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions given by virtue of paragraph 10A of that Schedule (family), [(ia) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (seamen and aircrews),] [(ib) a decision to make an order under section 2A of that Act (deprivation of right of abode),] (j) a decision to make a deportation order under section 5(1) of that Act, and (k) refusal to revoke a deportation order under section 5(2) of that Act. The permitted grounds of appeal are regulated by section 84(1), which provides: “(1) An appeal under section 82(1) against an immigration decision must be brought on one or more of the following grounds— (a) that the decision is not in accordance with immigration rules; (b) that the decision is unlawful by virtue of Article 20A of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997or by virtue of section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination in the exercise of public functions etc) so far as relating to race as defined by section 9(1) of that Act; (c) that the decision is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (public authority not to act contrary to Human Rights Convention) as being incompatible with the appellant ' s Convention rights; (d) that the appellant is an EEA national or a member of the family of an EEA national and the decision breaches the appellant ' s rights under the Community Treaties in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom; (e) that the decision is otherwise not in accordance with the law; (f) that the person taking the decision should have exercised differently a discretion conferred by immigration rules; (g) that removal of the appellant from the United Kingdom in consequence 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