[2024] UKUT 00393 (IAC)

In the decision made on 18 October 2021, the Respondent set out the Appellant’s history and circumstances in the United Kingdom, as well as his representations against deportation, which included family life with his mother and siblings in the United Kingdom, all of whom have settled status under the EUSS. It was not suggested that any of these relationships could meet the family life exception to deportation. Reference is made back to the decision to deport sent to the Appellant on 2 May 2021 (albeit the letter referred to is dated 27 April 2021) and the criminal offences listed therein, followed be a conclusion that the Respondent deems the Appellant’s deportation to be conducive to the public good under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971.

The Respondent stated that: “Your deportation is conducive to the public good and in the public interest because you are a persistent offender. This is because you have received 5 convictions for 16 offences between 17 May 2016 and 15 April 2021.” and went on to list the details of all of those offences.

In terms of private life, the Respondent did not accept that the Appellant met all of the requirements in paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules for this exception to deportation to apply. The Appellant had not been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of his life; the nature of his offending did not demonstrate social and cultural integration in the United Kingdom and there were no very significant obstacles to his reintegration in Portugal. In particular, it was noted that the Appellant spoke Portuguese, had his father there, could maintain contact with other family from there and would be able to engage with available mental health services there.

Overall, there were also no very compelling circumstances to outweigh the public interest in the Appellant’s deportation and the human rights claim was therefore refused (and separately certified as clearly unfounded).