Case No. UKUT-00282-(IAC)

31. We invited Mr Lemer to address us on this issue as a preliminary matter but we reserved our judgment on the issue until we had also heard his submissions upon the operation of paragraph 398( c ). However having now given our judgement on this issue, it disposes of this appeal to the Upper T ribunal. Our conclusion is that, once the appellant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years or more, he falls within the terms of paragraph 3 98 (a) and the Secretary of State is entitled to rely upon it in deciding whether or not to make a deportation order. It is no bar to the Secretary of State that she took no action to deport the offender as a result of the conviction and sentence nor that the appellant successfully appealed following his conviction and sentence. Such a claimant is no longer entitled to rely upon the exceptions set out within s. 117C. Whilst we permitted the exceptions to be argued before us de bene esse , this is not a practice which should be followed in other cases since it is simply not material. Ultimately, no decision against a non-national can violate his Article 8 rights b ut, in the case of a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to at least 4 years imprisonment, the route by which he might avoid removal, as part of the ‘complete code’ 2 is to establish the very compelling circumstances over and above those described in paragraphs 399 and 399A; no more, and no less. 32. It is impermissible to rely upon the contents of the respondent’s own instructions to case-workers as a means of interpreting the contents of a Statutory Instrument. Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDIs) may be used to identify a policy more favourable to an appellant than the Immigration Rules but cannot impose requirements more onerous to a claimant than the Rules. Hence, the IDIs are of limited use as a means of construction. However, the relevant IDI (Chapter 13) in this case is in the following terms, where material: