![[2024] UKUT 00066 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Without prejudice to the above, in deciding the appeal additional potential issues are
Without prejudice to the above, in deciding the appeal additional potential issues are:
Was the FTT entitled to apply the 2016 Regs when determining an appeal on human rights grounds, and if so, why?
Even if the FTT did not err in respect of its decision that S had made an application under the EUSS in February 2020, would that have entitled the FTT to decide the appeal by reference to the 2016 Regs absent a relevant decision from the SSHD giving rise to a right of appeal in which those 2016 Regs (or the underpinning requirements in the Withdrawal Agreement) fell to be considered?
Was the FTT entitled to consider S’s appeal and deportation by reference to the EU law test in Chapter VI of the Directive 2004/38EC pursuant to the Withdrawal Agreement or otherwise, and if so, on what basis? In particular, what is the scope and relevance of Article 20 and 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement?
Whether the position under the Withdrawal Agreement, including appeal rights, is reflected in relevant domestic legislation?
Was S required to have taken any steps, such as making an EUSS application, to benefit from the Withdrawal Agreement?
Annex 3 - List of issues and Chronology in SSHD v Rudokas
CHRONOLOGY & LIST OF ISSUES
- 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