Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00613/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at the Royal Courts of Justice
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3 April 2017
On 25 April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

Szymon Nowicki
(Anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant did not appear and was not represented
For the Respondent: Mr T Melvin, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant did not appear before me. I was advised by the Home Office before the hearing that he had been removed and therefore there was no point in waiting. Nevertheless when it was convenient to hear the case at approximately 10.15 in the morning I asked my clerk to call the case outside the hearing room to make sure there was no one with an interest attending the hearing. No one appeared.
2. The appellant appeals with the permission of the First-tier Tribunal a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Seelhoff dismissing his appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to make him the subject of a deportation order. The appellant is an EEA national and the judge who gave permission was concerned that the Tribunal might not have given proper regard to the requirements of Regulation 21 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 and particularly Regulation 21(5) which requires at subparagraph (c) that “the personal conduct of the person concerned must represent genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” and (e) “A person’s previous criminal convictions do not in themselves justify the decision”.
3. The appellant has a bad criminal record. On different occasions he has been sent to prison for robbery, corrupting a public official but, more significantly, his behaviour shows him to have been a persistent offender. He accumulated fourteen convictions in Poland between 1995 and 2013. Unless he has truly put behind him that kind of behaviour then his conduct does present a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society or at least it was open to the judge to make that conclusion.
4. His antecedents show him to be a man who has little regard for the criminal law, who appears to behave as he wishes and has no regard for sanctions. It is his case that he has put behind him his bad behaviour and he relies on eighteen months’ lawful residence in the United Kingdom during which time he has been employed gainfully for about sixteen months and has not been convicted of any offence whilst living there to support his case.
5. However the First-tier Tribunal Judge heard evidence and found that the appellant had not faced up to his past criminal behaviour. He continued to deny or minimise previous wrongdoing and, as is alleged in the refusal letter, he was living dishonestly in the United Kingdom by living with a partner but claiming a single person’s reduction on his council tax. That might not be regarded as the most serious kind of criminal behaviour but it is wholly inconsistent with any suggestion that he is a reformed character.
6. In his grounds the appellant alleges that he paid all of his taxes but he does not deal with that particular finding even though it was raised in the refusal letter and by the judge.
7. I understand the caution of the First-tier Tribunal Judge in giving permission because EEA nationals are in a privileged position compared with other foreign nationals and the law intentionally makes it hard to deport them. However I see no flaw in the Judge’s findings and I have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal against the First-tier Tribunal Judge’s decision.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

Signed

Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Dated 7 April 2017