[2024] UKUT 00323 (IAC)

SM (Article 33(2); Section 72; Essa post-EU exit)

Heard at Field House

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Promulgated on 27 August 2024

Before

MR C.M.G. OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

S M

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr P. Lewis, instructed by Birnberg Peirce Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr D. Clarke, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity because the case involves a protection claim. We make clear that anonymity has not been granted to protect the appellant’s reputation following his conviction for a criminal offence. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

1. The broad principles identified in Essa (Revocation of protection status appeals) [2018] UKUT 00244 (IAC) continue to apply to decisions made post-EU exit. The immigration rules continue to refer to ‘revocation’ of leave to remain as a refugee in similar terms and the terminology used in sections 82 and 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘NIAA 2002’) currently remain the same.

2. Post-EU exit, a grant of leave to remain as a refugee no longer acts as a grant of European Refugee Status, but is an act done under domestic law because a person meets the requirements of paragraph 334 of the immigration rules to be recognised as a refugee.

3. Post-EU exit, a decision to ‘revoke’ leave to remain as a refugee is no longer a decision giving effect to Article 14 of the Qualification Directive, but an act done under domestic law to remove the mechanism by which a person’s Convention Refugee Status under international law is recognised under domestic law.

4. Where leave to remain as a refugee is revoked solely with reference to section 72 NIAA 2002, and the cessation or exclusion clauses have not been applied, the dismissal of the appeal with reference to section 72(10) is unlikely to be problematic because it is likely that the person continues to have Convention Refugee Status.

5. The situation might be different where the decision to revoke a person’s leave to remain as a refugee with reference to section 72 NIAA 2002 is made in conjunction with a decision to cease or exclude a person from Convention Refugee Status. The application of section 72(10) NIAA 2002 is a technical mechanism requiring the appeal to be dismissed without affording the person an adequate opportunity to determine whether their Convention Refugee Status continues with reference to the relevant ground of appeal contained in section 84(3).

6. In appeals involving decisions to revoke protection status on the ground that the person has ceased to be or is excluded from refugee status, and where a person has failed to rebut the presumption that they are a danger to the community under section 72 NIAA 2002, findings of fact still need to be made to determine whether the person has Convention Refugee Status. This might need to be done to give effect to any rights and benefits still conferred by the Convention to a ‘removable refugee’ pending their removal from the UK. To this extent, it is material to a proper determination of the relevant ground of appeal relating to the Refugee Convention even if the overall outcome of the appeal is determined by operation of statute.

DECISION AND REASONS