Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-000224

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00318/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 11 April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LINDSLEY
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BARTLETT

Between

RS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Muman, of Counsel, instructed by JM Wilson Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 1 April 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Jamaica born in September 1992. He came to the UK in 1999 when he was seven years old. He initially entered as a visitor and then was granted discretionary leave. In July 2017 he was granted indefinite leave to remain. On 12th April 2019 the appellant was convicted of drugs offences and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. On 15th June 2021 the respondent served him with a notice of intention to deport, and he responded by making a human rights claim based on his family life with his partner and child. On 13th March 2022 the respondent refused the human rights claim and made a deportation order. The appellant’s appeal against the decisions was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal Judge in a decision promulgated on the 30th November 2023.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on 4th January 2024 on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law by failing to take into account material evidence, namely the independent social work report concerning the appellant’s relationship with his children.
3. The matter now comes before us to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and is so whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside.
Submissions – Error of Law
4. In the grounds of appeal and in oral submissions from Mr Muman it is argued, in short summary, that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as follows.
5. It is argued, that the First-tier Tribunal erred by failing to take into account the conclusions of the independent social worker (ISW), Ms Nafisa Aksar, whose report was included in the bundle, referred in the skeleton argument before the First-tier Tribunal (from paragraph 44 onwards particularly) and in submissions by counsel before the First-tier Tribunal, and which was a material piece of evidence.
6. In response to a request from us, Mr Muman stated that he did not maintain paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Appeal which set out that the ISW report concluded that the deportation of the appellant would cause the two British children of the family (the appellant’s daughter and his stepson son) emotional harm, and that this harm would have severe and bleak consequences for them.
7. Mr Muman’s submissions were that:
i. It was not possible to draw an inference from the judgement that the judge had had regard to the ISW report. The report sets out the children’s wishes and feelings and the judge has not had regard to these;
ii. the judge failed to set out reasons for rejecting the ISW report or what weight he attached to the report.
iii. the decision thus also erred in the consideration of the best interests of the children in accordance with s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
8. Ms Nolan’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
i. at paragraph 84 the judge accepts that there is family life within the family. At paragraph 86 the judge sets out the unduly harsh test and at paragraph 87 the judge makes findings in relation to the appellant’s daughter and finds her best interests are served by the child remaining with her mother, recording that the appellant has never lived with his partner or his daughter both before going into custody and currently. The judgement records that the appellant has been separated from his daughter for the four years he spent in prison and that the mother has been responsible for the child’s upbringing during his absence and that the relationship can continue via visits;
ii. the ISW report at paragraph 2.4.2 sets out that the appellant’s presence in the family home would allow his partner to have practical and emotional support and intimacy. The judge has factored this into consideration in paragraph 90 where the judge accepts that the appellant provides support to his partner and child and that removal would cause distress. The judge also makes findings that his partner may struggle to juggle care and earning a living but that she has family support and receives limited support from the appellant;
iii. the appellant has been unable to identify anything in the ISW report that would have materially impacted the judge’s conclusions that the threshold of very compelling circumstances have been met.
Conclusions – Error of Law
9. It is clear that the First-tier Tribunal appreciate that the appeal was argued both on protection and family life Article 8 ECHR grounds. It is clear also that the skeleton argument and appellant’s bundle were considered in determining the appeal, as set out at paragraph 11 of the decision. The First-tier Tribunal correct identifies that the test in this appeal was that of whether there were very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions to deportation, as is set out at paragraph 15 and 23-24 of the decision, when determining whether the appellant’s deportation was proportionate in the context of his Article 8 ECHR ties.
10. There is no dispute that there is no mention of the ISW report in the section of the decision where the FTT makes its conclusions about the unduly harsh to the children at paragraphs 87 to 90. Mr Muman did not put his case on the basis that there was a requirement to reference the report.
11. We find that at paragraph 90 the judge sets out that he accepted the partner’s evidence about the support the appellant provided and set out that the appellant’s “removal will inevitably cause her and the children some distress”. Paragraphs 86 to 91 set out findings and conclusions about the appellant’s removal on the appellant’s family and applies the correct tests. We find that the judge engaged with the issues identified in the ISW report in paragraphs 87 and 90 and made findings that were open to him.
12. Further, the appellant has not been able to identify anything in the ISW report that would have materially impacted the judge’s conclusions that has not been considered by the judge.
13. We find that there is no material error of law.

Decision:

1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

2. We uphold the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal on human rights and protection grounds.

J Bartlett

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 April 2025