Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-08-12, HU/04031/2019
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 12 August 2020 |
| Published date | 26 August 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 22 July 2020 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | HU/04031/2019 |
Appeal Number: HU/04031/2019
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/04031/2019
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Bradford by Skype for business |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On the 22nd July 2020 |
On the 12th August 2020 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS
Between
NF
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Masood, Counsel instructed on behalf of the respondent
For the Respondent: Ms Petterson, Senior Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction:
-
On 12 February 2019 the respondent made an order that the appellant is to be deported from the United Kingdom (‘UK’), following his criminal convictions as it was considered that his presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. The respondent refused the appellant’s human rights claim in a decision letter dated 5 February 2019.
-
The appellant, a citizen of Jamaica, appealed this decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Callow) (hereinafter referred to as the “FtTJ”). In a decision sent on 18 December 2019, the FtTJ dismissed his appeal on human rights grounds, and the appellant has now appealed, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
-
The hearing took place on 22nd July 2020, by means of Skype for Business which has been consented to and not objected to by the parties. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and both parties agreed that all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. I conducted the hearing from court at Bradford IAC with the parties’ advocates. No technical problems encountered during the hearing and I am satisfied both advocates were able to make their respective cases by the chosen means. I am grateful to Ms Masood and Ms Petterson for their detailed and clear oral submissions.
-
I make a direction regarding anonymity under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) Rules 2008 as the proceedings relate to the circumstances of minor children. I have referred to the children as “A1” And “A2”and the appellant’s partner as “X”. Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or members of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Background:
-
The appellant’s immigration history is summarised in the decision of the FtTJ at paragraphs 3-7. The appellant arrived in the UK at the age of 23 as a visitor. He married a British citizen in 2002 but his application made in July for leave to remain as a spouse was refused on the basis that his relationship was no longer subsisting. By this time, he was in a relationship with X. X arrived in the UK in 1990 at the age of 24. There are two children born of their relationship, A1 in 2003 and A2 in 2005. X also had a son from a previous relationship. All the children are British citizens.
-
Three applications made in 2008 for leave to remain on article 8 grounds were rejected as invalid. In April 2009 the appellant made a further application relying on his relationship with X and his two elder children (hereinafter referred to as “A1” and “A2”), but this was refused. The decision was challenged by way of judicial review. In his statement, the appellant explained his involvement with the children’s day-to-day activities (recorded at paragraph 5 of the FtT J’s decision). The respondent agreed to reconsider the decision and in April 2020 granted the appellant discretionary leave to remain until 8 April 2013. This was extended in September 2013 until 3 September 2016.
-
A third child was born in 2015 from a relationship between the appellant and another woman. In 2012 the appellant was sentenced to a 12 -month community order for an offence of battery of his partner X. A restraining order was also put in place and as a result the appellant left the family home. Notwithstanding the restraining order, the evidence of the parties before the FtTJ was to the effect that they continued with their relationship, although he did not live in the family home, and continued to see and have contact with the children.
-
The appellant has a number of convictions for minor driving offences and cautions for the possession of cannabis. In April 2015, the appellant was arrested by the police for drug-related offences and then released on bail. In June 2017 he was convicted following pleas of guilty to offences of conspiracy to evade a prohibition on the importation of cannabis between January – April 2015, possessing cannabis with intent to supply on 22 April 2015. On 11 August 2017 he was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on the first count with no separate penalty for the second count.
-
The circumstances of the offence are set out in the sentencing remarks of the Judge and summarised in the decision letter at paragraph 17 in detail.
The sentencing judge described the seriousness of the offence at the appellant had been convicted of in the following terms “… When they (the police) looked around what they found could only be described as a drug factory where you engaged in the preparation of cannabis for onward sale … At the premises was a range of paraphernalia … Hydraulic press … White disposable suits which no doubt were there so that you could seek to avoid DNA transmission and this detection and link with the drugs as they were past further down the chain … Police were able to trace via FedEx … Two packages which have been sent to this country which they were able to link to you and to drug dealing. Police investigations traced … WhatsApp messaging between you and a presumed supplier in the United States. It is clear to me that you are importing drugs … Processing them and packaging them for onward wholesale supply … Indication that this was a commercial enterprise which was operating on a very substantial scale … You played a leading role … In a substantial, commercial and sophisticated enterprise … I have considered the mitigation … You have children with whom you do not live with whom you are in contact.
-
No separate sentence was passed in relation to the second count and thus he was sentenced to a period of four years imprisonment in total. On 11 May 2018 a confiscation order in the sum of £16,394.26 was imposed.
-
In light of his conviction, a decision to deport him was issued on 14 November 2017. This was responded to by the appellant on 31 January 2018 and further evidence submitted on 21 March 2018. A decision was made on 5 February 2019 to refuse a protection and human rights claim.
The decision of the Secretary of State dated 5 February 2019
-
The decision letter is a lengthy document extending to 30 pages. It is not necessary to set out all that letter and it is summarised at paragraphs 8 (a) – (h) of the FtTJ’s decision.
-
Having set out the appellant’s immigration history and the sentencing remarks of the trial judge at paragraph 17 , the respondent addressed the submissions made in respect of the protection claim by reference to the objective material relating to sufficiency of protection and that of internal relocation. The respondent concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that he would be at risk of harm or persecution on return or entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection in the alternative.
-
In respect of his article 8 claim the respondent set out the nature of his claim which related to his relationship with his partner and three children in the United Kingdom and his private life having been resident since 2002.
-
The decision noted that his deportation was conducive to the public good and in the public interest because he had been convicted of an offence for which he had been sentenced to a period of at least four years (offences relating to the supply and importation of cannabis )and thus in accordance with paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules, the public interest required his deportation unless they were “very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in the exceptions of deportation” set out at paragraph 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules.
-
In respect of his offence, there was significant public interest in his deportation because he had been convicted of a serious offence. The trade in illicit drugs had a severe negative impact on society and that drug addiction affected not only drug users but also their families. The appellant had been well-organised and played a significant role in the supply and importation of drugs as indicated by the sentence imposed. Despite the evidence of having undertaken courses in prison, it was considered reasonable to conclude that there remained a risk of reoffending in the absence of evidence that there had been any improvement in his personal circumstances since his conviction.
-
When addressing his family life, it was noted that his marriage in 2002 no longer subsisted and in respect of...
To continue reading
Request your trial