Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-04-29, HU/13415/2019
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 29 April 2021 |
| Published date | 18 May 2021 |
| Hearing Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | HU/13415/2019 |
Appeal Number: HU/13415/2019
|
Upper Tribunal |
|
|
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Appeal Number: HU/13415/2019 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House (via Skype) |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 26 March 2021 |
On 29 April 2021 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL
Between
malik anthony skeffery
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Knight, legal representative, Duncan Lewis Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Melvin, Senior Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
-
On 9 October 2020, I issued a decision in which I held that the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Cameron) had erred in law in allowing the appellant’s appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. I set aside that decision in part and ordered that the decision on the appeal would be remade in the Upper Tribunal. A copy of my first decision is appended to this one and should be read in conjunction with it.
Background
-
The appellant is a medium offender who faces deportation from the United Kingdom. His primary route to avoiding deportation is to engage one of the statutory exceptions in s117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”). He relies – as he did before the FtT – on the first of those exceptions. In order to succeed, he must therefore establish that he has been lawfully resident in the UK for most of his life; that he is socially and culturally integrated in the UK; and that there would be very significant obstacles to his reintegration to Jamaica.
Scope
-
As I explained in my first decision, the appellant has been in the United Kingdom since the age of four and has resided lawfully since then. He was granted ILR in 2003, at which point he was five years old. It has consequently not been in issue in this appeal that the appellant has been lawfully resident in the UK for most of his life. The question of whether the appellant is socially and culturally integrated in the UK was in issue between the parties before the FtT. The judge resolved that question in the appellant’s favour and, at [24]-[29] of my first decision, I explained why I did not consider the respondent to have shown that this conclusion was tainted by legal error.
-
The judge also found in the appellant’s favour in concluding that there would be very significant obstacles to his reintegration into Jamaica. In that regard, I concluded that the judge had fallen into legal error. I set aside the FtT’s decision in that respect only and directed that the Upper Tribunal would remake the decision to that extent, and would also consider, insofar as it was necessary to do so, whether there were very compelling circumstances which sufficed to outweigh the public interest in the appellant’s deportation. In statutory terms, therefore, my task in this second decision is to consider only the questions posed by s117C(4)(c) and s117C(6) of the 2002 Act.
-
My task is further defined by the fact that a number of the FtT’s findings of fact were not tainted by legal error and were expressly preserved in my first decision. Those findings include the following. The appellant, his stepmother and his elder sister had given credible evidence before the FtT: [83]. The appellant does not maintain contact with his family in Jamaica and he has no meaningful relationship with anyone in that country: [83]. He has no contact with his birthmother and there is no reason to think that the relationship with her or her family could be rekindled: [85] Neither the appellant nor his family have returned to Jamaica since they arrived in the UK: [84]. The appellant would have no real connection to the country other than the fact of his birth: [86]. His father has mental health issues. The appellant resides with a relative in the UK: [86]. The judge had ‘not been provided with sufficient evidence’ to make a decision that the appellant could receive support over and above the food and accommodation he received in the UK: [87]. He receives emotional support from the family he has in the UK. The appellant receives medication for his epilepsy but there was nothing to show that such treatment would be unavailable in Jamaica: [88]. Although the appellant had undertaken education and courses in the UK, he had no meaningful links with Jamaicia which would assist him in reintegrating there: [89]. As a result of the ‘considerable crime related environment’, the appellant would be ‘susceptible to criminal elements’ in order to survive: [90]. Any relocation assistance would not last very long: [91].
Documentary Evidence
-
Despite the clear and specific focus of this remaking hearing, the 232 page bundle which was belatedly filed and served by the appellant’s solicitors replicates much of the material which was before the FtT. There are statements made by the appellant, his father, his mother, his aunt, his sister, his neighbour and his cousin. All of these statements were made for the hearing before the FtT, as was a letter from the proprietor of a bakery where the appellant was previously employed for a few months and a lady called Ms Smith, who works to reduce gang violence in Wandsworth.
-
There is some documentary evidence concerning the health of the various members of the appellant’s family. In respect of the appellant, there is material from 2018 relating to a diagnosis of epilepsy and the treatment given in relation thereto. In relation to his father, there is a printout from surgery records in 2018, showing that he had psychotic episodes in 2014 and 2017 and that he was prescribed Olanzapine in 2018. In relation to the appellant’s mother, there is evidence which had not been before the FtT, showing that she had suffered a stroke or heart attack requiring 5 days inpatient treatment in June 2020.
-
There are also a number of documents relating to the appellant’s academic and vocational achievements in the UK, before, during and after his time in prison. A letter from his Probation Officer, written in 18 September 2020, suggested that the appellant had engaged well with supervision; that he was working towards a career in the fitness industry; and that he had a close and supportive family. The OASYS report which preceded that (written in December 2019) showed that the appellant presented a low risk of serious harm to all but members of the public, in respect of whom he presented a medium risk.
-
I had directed that the appellant’s bundle should be filed and served 21 days in advance of the hearing. That direction was sent to the parties on 18 January 2021, by email. The purpose of that direction, as I made clear, was to ensure that the respondent had adequate time in which to consider the appellant’s bundle and to notify the Upper Tribunal if there were questions she wished to put to the appellant or his witnesses. I issued that direction with a view to ensuring that an informed view might be taken regarding the mode of hearing, since a remote hearing was unlikely to be suitable to the taking of contentious evidence from multiple witnesses. In the event, the appellant’s solicitors filed and served the bundle nine days before the hearing. Thankfully, Mr Melvin confirmed at the start of the hearing before me that he had no questions for the appellant or his witnesses. It was in those circumstances that I heard submissions from Mr Knight, for the appellant, first.
Submissions
-
Mr Knight submitted that the only question which arose for decision was whether there were very significant obstacles to the appellant’s re-integration to Jamaica. He asked me to consider the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lowe [2021] EWCA Civ 62 and to recall that the FtT had had the benefit of seeing and hearing the appellant and his witnesses give evidence. The reality of the case was that the appellant had lived in the UK since the age of four and he had no knowledge of Jamaica. It was obviously correct that he was of Jamaican origin and that he had lived with a Jamaican family in the UK but he was to all intents and purposes an Englishman. Even if he had been familiar with the country when he left, it would inevitably have changed in the ensuing years.
-
Mr Knight submitted that Jamaica was a very violent society in which the prospects of an individual re-integrating were closely tied to who they knew. The appellant’s London accent would be identified and he would be regarded as a failure. This would leave him open to exploitation as he would not be streetwise and would not know how to react to the ordinary man on the street. He would be unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial