Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

[2024] UKUT 00066 (IAC)

Fecha: 06-Nov-2023

24 Feb 2023: PTA granted on both grounds (Judge Curtis)

◦

S has filed Rule 24 Response opposing appeal, including on the basis that (i) even if the judge erred in disposing of the appeal under the 2016 Regs, that error made no material difference to the outcome of the hearing because of the findings of fact made by the FTT and (ii) the FTT gave adequate reasons for its decision vis the Feb 2020 EUSS application

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