Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-02-13, DA/00574/2014

Appeal Number: DA/00574/2014

Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber Appeal Number: DA/00574/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Kekić

Between

Remi Akinyemi

(anonymity order not made)

Appellant

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

Representation

For the Appellant: Mr P Mason, Counsel

For the Respondent: Mr T Melvin, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Determination and Reasons

Details of appellant and basis of claim

1. This appeal comes before me following my decision to set aside the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Thanki dated 29 August 2014. The reasons for that decision are set out in a separate document promulgated on 20 November 2014.

2. The appellant is of Nigerian ethnicity, born in the UK on 21 June 1983 to Nigerian parents who were students here at the time. His status has never been regularised which means he has never had leave to enter or remain. It is said that his parents believed him to be British on account of his birth here. His father was granted indefinite leave to remain in October 1987 and was naturalised as a British citizen in October 2004. His mother passed away when he was a teenager¹. Her status at the time is not specified in the papers. A death certificate has never been adduced but her demise is not in dispute. The appellant also has two brothers in the UK; one older and one younger than himself. They are both said to be British.

3. A deportation order pursuant to section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 was made on 13 February 2014 following the appellant’s conviction of four counts of possession of heroin with intent to supply and one count of possession of diamorphine with intent to supply and driving whilst disqualified, resulting in terms of imprisonment of three and a half years and twelve months to be served concurrently. I note that when he was stopped by the police, he gave a false name and was only identified when fingerprinted.

4. The appellant has the following additional criminal convictions:

• On 14 February 2005 he was sentenced to two months in prison and disqualified from driving for 12 months for handling stolen goods, using a vehicle whilst uninsured and driving other than in accordance with a licence.

• On 19 May 2005 he was convicted of using a vehicle while uninsured. His licence was endorsed with six penalty points.

• On 10 October 2005 he was convicted for driving whilst disqualified and sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment, using a vehicle while uninsured for which he was fined £200, and driving whilst disqualified for which he received five weeks’ imprisonment.

• On 1 August 2006 he was convicted for driving whilst disqualified and using a vehicle while uninsured. He was sentenced to 16 weeks’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years. He was also convicted of failing to surrender to custody for which he received a 14 days’ sentence.

• On 8 December 2006 he was convicted for driving whilst disqualified and using a vehicle while uninsured. He received four months in prison and his licence was endorsed.

• On 5 July 2007 he was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

• On 12 October 2010 he was convicted of possession of Class A and Class B controlled drugs and fined £170.

• On 4 February 2011 he was convicted of using a vehicle while uninsured, taking a vehicle without consent and driving whilst disqualified. He was sentenced to 16 weeks’ imprisonment.

5. This information is taken from the detention review details supplied by the respondent but would not seem to be a complete list of convictions as, according to the OASys report, the appellant has amassed 18 convictions for some 42 offences and two cautions, not including the index offences/convictions. His first contact with the police was when he was 15 years old and his first conviction was at the age of 17.

6. Apart from driving offences, there is also a conviction in January 2001 for conspiracy to rob at knifepoint and two in 2000 for possession of an offensive weapon (a lock knife).

7. The appellant has no partner in the UK and no children. There is no evidence of any educational qualifications prior to his recent incarceration and no evidence of employment. Consideration was given to his deportation in 2011 but he was given another chance to show he was rehabilitated in view of his long residence here. He denies being aware of this and I shall address this issue later in this determination.

The Hearing

8. At the hearing on 19 January 2015, I heard oral evidence from the appellant, his brother, father and cousin.

9. The appellant adopted his witness statement which he stated was recently prepared although it appears to be a revamp of the statement prepared for the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. He agreed that much of his offending had been driven by his drug habit. He was asked what steps he had taken to address that. He stated he had spoken to job workers in prison about getting clean but he was unable to complete the CARAT course as he had problems with other prisoners who were trying to force their religion on him. After he was moved elsewhere, he had one to one sessions as part of his programme and was able to explore the issues he had over the loss of his mother and a false accusation of rape made by a former girlfriend some two years later (approximately 15 years ago). He confirmed that his last drugs test in January 2014 was negative. He stated that he now realised that drugs were not the solution to his problems and he felt much “fresher”.

10. The appellant was asked further questions about his mother’s death. He said that he had been 16 at the time². He had been very close to his mother and after her death he received no counselling or advice. Since then he had seen his GP to discuss his situation and he had been attending church. He had also been able to have talks with Tony Spackman of SEAP (Support Empower Advocate Promote) which had helped him to have a positive state of mind.

11. The appellant stated that he knew this was his last chance to move forward. He spoke to his family members more than he had in the past and he had support from the church. He believed that with this support and with counselling he could progress.

12. The appellant was asked about his links to Nigeria. He said had never been there. His mother had been buried there but all his links were with the UK.

13. With regard to his future plans, the appellant stated that he had been to a few job interviews but as he was unsure of his immigration status he had not taken up any work. He stated that his mother had worked in a care home and he wanted to follow in her footsteps. He had been offered a course leading to an NVQ qualification.

14. With regard to friendships, the appellant stated he had seen a few old school friends on Facebook but he did not want to meet negative people and had limited his socialising to his family members and his church.

15. That completed his examination in chief.

16. In response to questions from Mr Melvin, the appellant said that his mother had died in 1997³. Two years later a false accusation of rape had been made against him. He agreed that these events had occurred more than 15 years ago. When asked why he had not made any attempts to deal with these issues earlier, the appellant stated that he did not understand what he had been going through after losing his mother. His mother had told him that he would suffer without her. This had disturbed him. His father found it difficult to speak to him. At 19 the appellant started to smoke and take drugs. The allegation of rape had stayed with him as he still had that reputation. He was asked whether his change in attitude and his reliance on the church had anything to do with the decision to deport him. He replied that he had always had the church in his life. The pastor at the New Life Church made an appointment for him and they began to interact. It was not just because of the deportation. He said he was not blaming past events for his offending behaviour but he had been insecure and negative and had not believed in himself.

17. The appellant stated that since the age of 18 he had lived independently at times.

18. ...