China
) v
SSHD
[2014] EWCA Civ 1310, it was stated, at [21]: “ The fact that they are British nationals is undoubtedly of importance, since it carries with it the right to live and be brought up here, but in this case the children appear to have formed no particular attachment to this country and are of an age at which they can be expected to integrate into Chinese society with less difficulty than might otherwise have been the case. However, they are not being required to leave the UK
, since their mother has indefinite leave to remain and can continue to care for them here, if she so chooses. If the appellant is deported, it will be for him and his partner to decide whether it is in the children’s best interests to remain here with her or move to China as part of a united family. In the end, however, this case turned largely on the balance struck between two competing interests: the public interest in the deportation of the appellant and the children’s interests in remaining here with both parents. ”
The judgment continues, at [24]: “ The starting point for any such assessment is the recognition that the public interest in deporting foreign criminals is so great that only in exceptional circumstances will it be outweighed by other factors, including the effect of deportation on any children. However, in cases where the person to be deported has been sentenced to a term of impris
onment for less than four years and has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child under the age of 18 years who enjoys British nationality and is in the UK, less weight is to be attached to the pubic interest in deportation if it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and there is no one else here to look after him. By contrast, however, where the person to be deported h
as been sentenced to a term of four years’ imprisonment or more, the provisions of paragraph 399 do not apply and accordingly the weight to be attached to the public interest in deportation remains very great despite the factors to which that paragraph refers. It follows that neither the fact that the appellant’s children enjoy British nationality nor the fact that they may be separated from their father for a long time will be sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances of a kind which outweigh the public interest in his deportation. The appellant’s children will not be forced to leave the UK since, if she chooses to do so, their mother is free to remain with them in this country
. ” 11. Most recently, in
- Introduction
- istory
- First Decision of the FtT
- First Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- ost Recent Decision of the FtT
- This Appeal
- Paragraph 398
- Paragraph 399
- Paragraph 399A
- Criminals
- SSHD
- China
- PF (Nigeria
- Somalia
- pproach)
- Rules Issue
- Chege
- Bairstow
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- application
- they
- every
- Greenwood
- (Automatic Deportation: Order of Events)
- an inherent jurisdiction
- Haddad
- Secretary of State for the Home Department
- ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- DS (Afghanistan)
- Practice
- Disposal
