Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-04-07, PA/12719/2018
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 07 April 2020 |
| Published date | 29 April 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 23 January 2020 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | PA/12719/2018 |
Appeal Number: PA/12719/2018
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/12719/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 23 January 2020 |
On 7 April 2020 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN
Between
K.N.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
-and-
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the appellant: Ms. E. Sanders, Counsel, instructed by Bindmans LLP
For the respondent: Mr. T. Melvin, Senior Presenting Officer.
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
-
The appellant is a national of Jamaica. He is presently aged 20. He appeals against a decision to refuse him leave to remain in this country on human rights grounds. The respondent previously made a decision to deport the appellant to Jamaica.
-
The appeal was initially considered by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal O’Garro who allowed it on article 3 grounds by means of a decision dated 27 June 2019. The respondent appealed against the decision of Judge O’Garro and following an error of law hearing held on 17 September 2019 I found that the Judge had materially erred in law and set aside her decision. I directed that save for the findings made in relation to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees no other findings were to stand. The error of law decision was sent to the parties on 25 September 2019.
-
The matter was listed before me for the resumed hearing on 23 January 2020.
Anonymity
-
I issued an anonymity direction on 25 September 2019 and no application was made by either party for it to be set aside. I therefore confirm that the following direction remains in place:
‘Unless the Upper Tribunal or a court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the appellant, his partner or close members of his family. This direction applies to, amongst others, the appellant and the respondent. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings.’
-
I make the direction to avoid a likelihood of serious harm arising to the appellant from his mental health concerns becoming known to the general public.
Background
-
The appellant’s mother died when he was aged 1 and he then lived with a maternal aunt in Jamaica until he was approximately aged 11. Following a successful appeal before the First-tier Tribunal in February 2011 the appellant was granted a settlement visa valid from 8 June 2010 and was permitted to join his father in this country (OA/17001/2010). Settlement was backdated so as to be valid from the date of the original refusal decision. The appellant has enjoyed lawful residence in this country since the grant of settled status, a period of approaching ten years.
-
Upon his arrival in this country the appellant was reunited with his father. Unfortunately, he experienced difficulties residing with his father and when aged 13 he moved to reside with a female cousin. Problems arose in their relationship and from November 2015 he was looked after by the London Borough of Lewisham. A foster placement broke down relatively quickly in 2016 and at the age of 17 he was placed in semi-independent living accommodation.
-
For the purpose of the Children Act 1989, as amended by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the appellant remains a ‘former relevant child’ until he reaches his twenty-first birthday and the local authority has a duty to assist him in respect of employment, education, training and contributing to the expenses of accommodation.
Criminal convictions
-
Since the summer of 2016 the appellant has accumulated several convictions for possessing class A drugs (heroin and cocaine) with intent to supply and possession of class B drugs (cannabis). All but one of the offences were committed when the appellant was aged 17 and 18. He was initially sentenced to fines and a youth rehabilitation order but on 18 January 2018 the Central London Magistrates’ Court revoked the youth rehabilitation order and imposed a 12-month detention and training order.
-
On 1 November 2017 the appellant was sentenced to 28 days at a Young Offenders’ Institute for contempt of court. This arose from the appellant’s unwillingness to support a criminal prosecution through personal fear.
-
On 8 October 2018 the appellant was fined for possessing a class B drug (cannabis).
Decision to deport
-
Following the imposition of the 12-months’ detention and training order on 18 January 2018, the respondent served upon the appellant a decision to deport on conducive to the public good grounds under section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971. This decision is dated 6 March 2018. The appellant subsequently made a protection and human rights claim based upon the high level of crime in Jamaica and his own personal circumstances. The respondent refused the protection and human rights claim by means of a decision dated 22 October 2018. The respondent concluded that the asylum claim did not raise a Convention ground, and as to the humanitarian protection claim there was a sufficiency of protection existing in Jamaica.
-
The respondent observed as to article 8 that under paragraph 399A the appellant was unable to satisfy the requirement that he have lawfully resided in the United Kingdom for most of his life. The respondent further concluded that very compelling circumstances do not arise in this matter so as to outweigh the public interest in the appellant’s deportation.
Hearing
-
The appellant attended the hearing before me and gave oral evidence. A friend, Karen Williams, gave oral evidence as did Conrad Brady, his personal advisor from the local authority Leaving Care Team. The appellant’s partner, LJ, who is pregnant with the couple’s child, attended but did not give evidence. Though not living together, I was informed that the couple see each other regularly.
-
The appellant provided details as to the reasons why he was taken into care and also as to events surrounded the death of a friend by means of his witness statement dated 29 April 2019. Such personal history is given weight in my assessment below, but I have concluded that it is not necessary for me to expressly detail such history in this decision.
-
As to his prior criminality, the appellant details in his witness statement:
‘It was around this time that I got into trouble. I really do regret my actions and I am sorry for the trouble that I have caused. I was in a bad way and vulnerable at that time. I got in with a bad crowd who I thought at the time were helping me and I thought they were friends, but I realise now that were not. They were older than me and started buying me things and treating me and then they got me into trouble. I really wanted to be liked and was happy that they seemed to want to be my friends. I suppose you could I was exploited by them. I am not in touch with these people any longer. I am trying hard to mend my ways.’
-
In his evidence before me the appellant confirmed that his personal feelings were variable, up and down, but that he was not taking medication. He is now living on his own, having until two months previously lived in a flat with four other young adults under supervision. The move is part of a process of enabling him to become more independent. He is spending several days a week with LJ, who had occupied her own property for approximately a month prior to the hearing before me. He confirmed that he had not completed educational courses that he had embarked upon prior to the First-tier Tribunal hearing, nor had he pursued a business plan relating to the clothing industry. He explained that both events were consequent to his being unable to establish that he was lawfully present in this country. He confirmed that he has two aunts residing in Jamaica, and also a half-brother with whom he has had limited contact via Facebook but there has been no contact since the appellant went to prison in 2018.
-
The appellant was supported by Mr. Brady who confirmed that he had regular contact with the appellant, who he observed was ‘transitioning in terms of maturity, particularly as he will soon be a father’ and in recent times was ‘communicating on another level’.
-
Ms. Williams adopted her witness statement in which she detailed:
‘I know [the appellant] got lost along the way and he has made some poor choices. I am a social worker and I have spoken to him about his criminal convictions. He was vulnerable and made an error of judgment. I believe that he really wanted to make the most of his chance of coming to the UK, but he was vulnerable and started listening to the wrong people. When I see him now, I check in with him and the way [the appellant] speaks is with honest regret. I think his intentions are good, genuine and honourable. He wants to do something with his life. He has talked to me about the fact that he may have to return to Jamaica. He wasn’t angry when he told me. He spoke with sadness and humility. He realises that his place in...
To continue reading
Request your trial