[2025] UKUT 00277 (IAC)

Contrary to the assertion at [4] in the grounds, the FTT has assessed each component of s. 117C(4) of the 2002 Act, finding that the appellant met Exception 1(a) but not (b) and (c). The FTT gave unarguably adequate reasons for these conclusions: the appellant had been lawfully resident in the UK for most of his life [29]; he was not socially and culturally integrated in the UK [35-38], and; there would be no significant obstacles to his integration into Sierra Leone [39-46]. The FTT then considered “very compelling circumstances over and above” Exception 1 pursuant to s. 117C(6), together with the relevant Article 8 balance sheet including the public interest at [47-64].

Mr Marziano submitted that the FTT arguably erroneously imported into Exception 1, a balancing exercise in which it treated the strength of public interest in deporting the appellant as relevant. Whilst it is correct that the FTT addressed the public interest in deportation at [30]-[34], and therefore prior to considering Exception 1(b), this did not impact or infect the separate “social and cultural integration” assessment which followed. The structure might at first blush give rise to a concern that the conclusions on the public interest erroneously informed the FTT’s approach to cultural and social integration. However, when the decision is read as a whole, it is unarguably clear that the FTT correctly considered integration as a self-contained question without any reference to the strength of public interest.

Contrary to the submission at [7] of the grounds, the FTT applied the relevant authorities on the meaning of cultural and social integration for the purposes of s. 117C(4)(b). Whilst the FTT did not cite any authorities, Mr Marziano properly accepted that the real question was whether the FTT applied the principles in the relevant authorities. The judge’s self-direction at [35], and the carefully reasoned findings which followed, unarguably reflect the principled approach set out in Binbuga v SSHD [2019] Imm AR 1026; [2019] EWCA Civ 551 at [56]-[57] and CI (Nigeria) v SSHD [2019] Imm AR 503; [2019] EWCA Civ 2027 at [60]-[62].

Mr Marziano criticised the FTT for placing the appellant’s criminality “front and centre”, at the expense of his private life, when evaluating cultural and social integration. When the decision is read as a whole, that criticism cannot be said to be arguably well-founded. The FTT was clearly well aware of the limited extent of the appellant’s family life with his mother and siblings. There has been no challenge to the findings at [25-28] that this does not constitute family life for the purposes of Article 8. The FTT properly took into the nature and extent of the appellant’s private life in the UK, in particular his long standing residence in the UK including schooling from the age of 4 and his lack of ties to Sierra Leone – see [29, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 60, 61 and 63]. The FTT was unarguably aware of and factored in those aspects which suggested the appellant was culturally and socially integrated to the UK and was unarguably entitled to find on the evidence available that as at the date of hearing, on balance, he was not integrated, in the light of the absence of any lawful meaningful cultural or social connections. This should be viewed in the context of the undisputed evidence that the appellant was involved in serious criminal offending during his teenage years, which culminated in a very lengthy sentence when he was 19, in relation to which he remains in prison.

Mr Marziano focused his oral submissions on the FTT’s alleged failure to address integration and rehabilitation before deciding that the appellant’s criminality negated it. However, Mr Marziano was unable to identify any material factor left out of account, when the decision is read as a whole. When pressed, Mr Marziano was only able to refer to the fact the appellant lived in the UK and went to school in the UK for a lengthy period and had the support of his mother. These matters were unarguably considered by the FTT.

Mr Marziano conceded there was no authority supporting his contended three-stage approach to integration in [7] of the grounds. In any event, he advanced no arguable basis as to how the very scant evidence of rehabilitation could even arguably have swung the balance back in the appellant’s favour in the light of the clear findings regarding the appellant’s history of connections to the UK and the impact of his criminal lifestyle and offending upon this. As it is, we find that the judge gave unarguably adequate reasons for reaching his conclusion on integration.