[2024] UKUT 00393 (IAC)

The Respondent refused the Appellant’s EUSS application on the basis that he did not meet the suitability grounds under rule EU15 as he was the subject of a deportation order (without specifying the specific provision applicable, whether paragraph (b)(i) or (ii) of the definition of deportation order). The decision states as follows:

“Public policy, public security or public health consideration

When a decision to make a deportation order has been made on non-conducive grounds in respect of conduct committed before 23:00 on 31 December 2020, your application for leave under the EU Settlement Scheme can only be refused on grounds of suitability under rule EU15 where the decision to make a deportation order is justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 27 of the EEA Regulations 2016 (as saved), irrespective of whether the EEA Regulations apply to you.”

The decision continues with an assessment of threat pursuant to regulation 27(5) of the EEA Regulations; including a list of the Appellant’s convictions from 2016 to 2021, the view that the Appellant posed a high risk of re-offending and a high risk of serious harm to the public, known adults, children and staff; with the Appellant being subject to the MAPPA level 1 and on the Sex Offenders Register for seven years. The Respondent concluded that the Appellant has a propensity to re-offend and that he presented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the public, with deportation justified on grounds of public policy.

The Appellant’s deportation was considered to be proportionate having regard to the factors in regulation 27(5) of the EEA Regulations and that deportation would not prejudice the Appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation. Overall, the Respondent considered that the Appellant’s deportation was justified on grounds of public policy in accordance with regulation 23(6)(b), irrespective of whether the EEA Regulations (as saved) applied to him. There was no express consideration of the length of the Appellant’s residence in the United Kingdom or whether there were serious grounds of public policy applicable.