Case No. UKUT-00162-(IAC)

that he appears to have acquired 10 years continuous residence from 1997 until 2011. Thereafter his continuous time in the UK has been broken by periods spent in prison which does [sic] not as lawful residence. ” The Tribunal then raised the question of whether the Appellant had 10 years continuous residence during the period preceding August 2005, when the impugned decision was made. The Judge did not, however, answer this question. Rather, the determination states: “ As noted above the Appellant on balance appears to have acquired such residence from 1997 until 01 March 2011 … ” This is followed by: “ It follows therefore that any removal of the Appellant can only be in accordance with Regulation 21(4) namely on imperative grounds of public security. ” [My emphasis.] 10. In the penultimate paragraph of its decision the FtT concludes and reasons as follows: (i) The Appellant is a British citizen under section 1(1)(b) under the 1981 Act. (ii) Accordingly, he cannot be deported under the 2006 Regulations. (iii) If conclusions (i) and (ii) are incorrect, the Appellant is an EEA national who, by virtue of 10 years continuous residence in the United Kingdom, can be deported only on grounds of “imperative public security”, under Regulation 21(4) of the 2006 Regulations. (iv) While the Appellant has undoubtedly engaged in “serious criminality”, the threshold of “imperative public security” is not overcome. The FtT allowed the appeal accordingly.