[2023] UKUT 00164 (IAC)

certified that the s.72 presumption applies because the appellant was convicted of a particular serious crime (having been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years) and had not rebutted the presumption that he constitutes a danger to the community;

revoked the appellant’s refugee status under para 339A(v) of the Immigration Rules and Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention on the basis that he was no longer dependent upon his mother and the circumstances in Zimbabwe for a person like him (who did not have a significant MDC profile and came from an urban area) had fundamentally and durably changed, such that the circumstances in connection with which he had been recognised as a refugee ceased to exist;

concluded that the appellant’s medical condition did not meet the severity threshold to engage Article 3, ECHR and that he has sufficient links and access to support in Zimbabwe to obviate any contravention of Article 3;

concluded that the appellant did not meet the requirements of para 399A of the Immigration Rules on the basis that he was not socially and culturally integrated in the UK and there would not be very significant obstacles to his integration there;

concluded that there would be no breach of Article 8, ECHR on the basis of the appellant’s relationship with: a) his partner, because they were not in a genuine and subsisting relationship and in any event she could reasonably move to Zimbabwe to live with him, and; b) his son, because it was believed at the time that the appellant did not claim to have a family life with children;

concluded that the appellant was unable to demonstrate evidence of a very strong Article 8 claim over and above the exceptions to outweigh the very significant public interest in deportation.