Case No. UKUT-00330-(IAC)

. The applicable legal rules are contained in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the “2002 Act”). This is reproduced in Appendix 1 to this judgment. The Secretary of State’s policy is contained in paragraphs A398, 398, 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules. These provisions are reproduced in Appendix 2. 13. As noted above, there was earlier consideration of how one aspect of the decision in Bah might impact on the resolution of this appeal. This concerned the exhortation in Bah that the first step in deportation appeals not involving the 2007 Act is to consider whether the Appellant is liable to be deported on the grounds set out by the Secretary of State, an exercise which normally involves an examination by the Tribunal of: (a) whether the material facts alleged by the Secretary of State are accepted and, if not, made out to the civil standard flexibly applied; (b) whether on the facts established and viewed as a whole, the conduct, character or associations of the appellant reach such a level of seriousness as to justify a decision to deport; and (c) in considering (b), taking into account any lawful policy of the Secretary of State relevant to the exercise of the discretion to deport and whether the discretion has been exercised in accordance with such policy. The overtly prescriptive nature of the decision in Bah involves two further steps. First, subject to the outcome of the aforementioned exercise, the Tribunal will then consider any human rights or protection objections to deportation and, finally, will consider whether the “ discretion to deport ” has been exercised in accordance with the applicable immigration rules. 14. The proposition that the decision in Bah was made in the context of a particular legal framework then extant but long superseded seems to us unexceptional. The main constituent elements of such framework were section 3(5) and section 5(1) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 364 of the Immigration Rules. This is not the legal/policy framework applicable to the remaking of the FtT’s decision hereby undertaken by us: see [12] above. The transformation of the legal landscape postdating Bah has been substantial. It has three features in particular. First, the introduction of new primary legislation in the form of Part 5A of the 2002 Act. Second, the repeal of paragraph 364 of the Rules (which took effect on 9 July 2012 coupled with the introduction of the new provisions of the Immigration Rules assembled in Appendix 2, with effect from 28 July 2014. Third, the advent of a series of binding decisions of the Court of Appeal relating to the construction and impact of the new primary legislation provisions and their interplay with the Rules, crowned by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in