Case No. UKUT-00629-(IAC)

2. The history is somewhat protracted and we summarise it thus: (a) In April 2002 the Respondent entered the United Kingdom as a visitor and was subsequently granted leave to remain as a student. (b) On 23 January 2004 he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment having pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with intent to supply and two other drugs possession offences. (c) On 30 April 2004 the Secretary of State decided to make a deportation order against the Respondent. (d) On 26 July 2006 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal allowed the Respondent’s appeal against this decision. (e) There followed the grant of discretionary leave to remain to the Respondent, ultimately expiring on 06 May 2011. (f) Between January and September 2011 the Respondent was detained on remand in respect of certain drugs offences. (g) On 24 June 2011 the Respondent applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom based on his marriage to a British citizen on 23 September 2003. (h) On 23 September 2011 the index convictions were made at Bristol Crown Court. (i) On 07 October 2011 the Secretary of State refused the Respondent’s indefinite leave to remain application. (j) By a determination promulgated on 09 February 2012 the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Respondent did not satisfy paragraph 287 of the Immigration Rules and, further, that his deportation would not infringe Article 8 ECHR. (k) On appeal, the Upper Tribunal held that the FtT had erred in law in its dismissal of the appeal under Article 8. By its decision promulgated on 19 December 2012, the Upper Tribunal remade the decision, dismissing the Respondent’s appeal. (l) Meantime, on 15 March 2012, prior to the grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal ( supra ), the Secretary of State transmitted the customary “minded to deport” letter to the Respondent. (m) This elicited representations on behalf of the Respondent. (n) Next, on 27 June 2013, the Secretary of State decided that section 32(5) of the 2007 Act was applicable and, on the same date, a deportation order was made.