![[2024] UKUT 00066 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
20 Dec 2022: FTT decision handed down
20 Dec 2022: FTT decision handed down
Human rights appeal succeeds (breach of Art.8 rights because of relationship with daughter meaning exception to deportation applied / deportation would be unduly harsh (paras 37-39))
EUSS appeal does not succeed. FTT not satisfied that A had been exercising treaty rights for a continuous period of five years and concluded he had not acquired permanent right of residence in the United Kingdom. the SSHD therefore entitled to take forward deportation on conducive grounds. FTT not entitled to look behind the deportation order (paras 28-31).
23 Dec 2022: The SSHD seeks permission to appeal the human rights decision on basis of (i) material error of law in and (ii) failure to give adequate reasons for finding that deportation would be unduly harsh
11 Jan 2023: Permission to appeal granted by FTT in respect of both human rights and EUSS decisions but on alternative ground:
Did judge err in failing to consider whether deportation capable of being justified in accordance with the 2016 Regs rather than considering deportation solely under domestic deportation regime given criminal conduct took place pre-31 December 2020?
Judge’s explanation for this set out at paras 4-11 of the PTA Decision. In summary: (i) the SSHD had conceded in her human rights’ decision letter that A’s proposed deportation falls to be considered under 2016 Regs; (ii) additionally Article 20.1 of the WA and [7.3] of the Explanatory Memorandum to the 2020 Regulations both confirm in broad terms that the 2016 Regs will continue to apply to EEA Citizens in respect of conduct predating end of the transition period (the “TP”); (iii) A’s conduct pre-dated the TP; (iv) the 2016 Regs therefore apply, not the domestic deportation regime. The FTT therefore arguably erred in failing to consider whether A’s proposed deportation was capable of being justified under the 2016 Regs. Permission to appeal granted against both decisions because FTT’s consideration of the human rights appeal was arguably tainted consideration of the conjoined EUSS appeal (para 11).
A raised this issue in Rule 24 response (citing Smith [2019] UKUT 00216 (IAC)) and agreed permission to appeal should be granted (“the [FTTJ] failed to properly consider the relevant provisions under [regs 23(6)(b) and 27 of the 2016 Regs] and Article 20.1 of the [WA] and 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Citizens Rights (Applicant Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020”).
SSHD agreed that this argument could be raised on appeal.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- Broad outline of the issues
- The Law
- Background
- Domestic law on deportation
- The WA in detail
- Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules
- Discussion
- The Divisional Court set out the general principles on this issue at [80]
- ZA
- AS (Szuba)
- Rudas Rudokas (“RR”)
- The appeal will be listed to be remade in the Upper Tribunal on a date to be fixed
- The parties are therefore directed to prepare and serve 10 working days before the next hearing in electronic form
- The appeal will be listed to be remade in the Upper Tribunal on a date to be fixed
- RR The Secretary of State has stated in his email of 14 February 2024 that: “ Mr Rudokas’ human rights appeal can be dealt with by the FTT as a new matter in his existing appeal under the CRA Regulations
- CHRONOLOGY & LIST OF ISSUES
- 2008: A claims to have moved with his family move to the United Kingdom
- 22 Sept 2010: A convicted of failing to comply with CRO/CPO (unpaid work requirement imposed) [328]
- 25 Oct 2017: A convicted of battery [328]
- 30 July 2021: A convicted of offence (inflicting GBH without intent) in connection with the 28 Nov 2019 incident and is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (reduced on appeal to 12 months) [343]
- 9 Sept 2021: A begins prison sentence 11 Oct 2021: SSHD notify A of intention to deport due to his conviction [348] [360]
- 15 Nov 2021: A’s solicitors submit representations resisting deportation [361]
- 3 May 2022: SSHD notifies A of decision to
- 9 May 2022: A served with deportation decision/order 9 May 2022: A files appeal on basis that the SSHD’s decision [15]
- 2 Nov 2022: Appeal heard by FTT (Judge Coutts) against both the human rights and EUSS decisions
- 20 Dec 2022: FTT decision handed down
- 4 May 2023: UT (Judge Kebede) grants SSHD’s appeal on basis that
- LIST OF ISSUES For the Home Office (pursuant to para. 27(a)(i) of the UT’s decision): the SSHD to provide “ confirmation of the relevant decision made in relation to the appellant’s deportation, given the apparent i
- In respect of A’s appeal under the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (“the Appeals Regs”)
- CHRONOLOGY & LIST OF ISSUES
- 9 Nov 2021: S’s sols provide submissions in response to deportation decision, including raising human rights claim [A/39]
- 23 May 2022: SSHD decision to
- 30 May 2022: S appealed against (i) human rights claim refusal and (ii) deportation order on the basis that [A/67]
- 30 June 2022: S applies under EUSS again allegedly on SSHD advice (previous application deleted) 21 Dec 2022: Appeal heard (Judge Dixon)
- 3 Feb 2023: SSHD appeals on basis that
- 24 Feb 2023: PTA granted on both grounds (Judge Curtis)
- 18 March 2023: S released from prison(?) [A/22] What is the source and scope of S’s right of appeal to the FTT?
- If so, is the error material such that the FTT decision is required to be set aside and re-made? Did the FTT materially err in deciding that S had made an application under the EUSS in February 2020?
- Without prejudice to the above, in deciding the appeal additional potential issues are
- CHRONOLOGY
- 13 July 2022: R convicted of money laundering/weapons possession offences (2-year prison sentence and POC (£384,120.19)) [8]
- 9 Aug 2022: SSHD gives notice of Stage 1 decision to deport under United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 / Immigration Act 1971 [11] 23 Aug 2022: R appeals 9 August 2022 Stage 1 decision to deport on (i) human rights grounds (Art. 8) and (ii) that his depor
- 13 Oct 2022: R placed in immigration detention [71]
- Feb 2023: SSHD applies for permission to appeal on two grounds
- LIST OF ISSUES – TO BE DETERMINED AT ERROR OF LAW HEARING UNLESS PARTIES AGREE THERE WAS AN ERROR OF LAW What was the scope of R’s right of appeal against the decision of 9 August 2022?
- Conclusions