Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005606

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/02109/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24 February 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBNAL JUDGE SYMES

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

SYDNEY OTSEMOBOR IGBANOI
(no ANONYMITY ORDER)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Nolan, Senior Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Gazzain, counsel instructed on behalf of the appellant

Heard at Field House on 23 July and 24 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal of 25 October 2024 to allow Mr Igbanoi’s appeal on human rights grounds against the deportation order made against him on 10 November 2023. Following a hearing of 23 July 2025 a Panel of the Upper Tribunal found a material error of law in aspects of the First-tier Tribunal’s determination of the appeal and the case was therefore set down for a continuation hearing before me. Below I commence the final decision on the appeal by repeating the introductory facts previously set out in the error of law decision. Beyond that I will not repeat the reasons for that decision here as that decision is available to read and sets out the reasons at length.
Procedural history and facts
2. Mr Igbanoi, born 19 March 1977, entered the UK aged fourteen in June 1991 with a settlement visa to join his father here, and has ever since held indefinite leave to remain. He has a significant offending history. The index offence triggering deportation was one for which he was sentenced on 11 April 2022 at Southwark Crown Court to a total of 42 months imprisonment on a guilty plea for four counts for the possession with intent to supply, and the actual supply, of cocaine and MDMA, and the supply of a Class B drug, the offences being committed around in January 2020 and March 2022; two counts involved the activation of formerly suspended sentences following the commission of offences during their operational period. He previously had a long history of offending, comprising some 22 convictions for 33 offences, primarily in relation to using and dealing drugs, particularly for the possession of cannabis, stretching back to 1997. His police national computer record also disclosed some other minor convictions but their detail is not relevant here given the Secretary of State does not suggest that they have any bearing on the proportionality balancing exercise authorised by s117 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“NIAA 2002”).
3. An OASys report stated that Mr Igbanoi’s offending behaviour was believed to be interlinked with his long-term Cannabis misuse; he was assessed as posing a medium risk of general reoffending and a low risk of serious harm.
4. Mr Igbanoi’s case against deportation was predicated on his parental relationship with four British citizen children:
(a) His daughter, Lauren Igbanoi, born 8 April 2008, who lives in Finland with her mother Katarina Leena Leivo, a Finnish national living and working as a psychologist, who attended to give evidence in this appeal with Lauren. Ms Leivo began a relationship with Mr Igbanoi in around 2005. Ms Leivo was clearly an impressive witness who provided much of the narrative before the First-tier Tribunal. She works as a senior specialist for a non-governmental organization addressing childhood sexual abuse in Finland and as a trauma focused CBT-therapist for children and young people. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that “her professional background would mean that she would treat as paramount the welfare of all the Appellant’s children, and she would not be someone who could be misled into naively accepting the protestations of the Appellant that he has changed his ways.”
(b) His daughters, Mya Igbanoi Ethnic, born 26 March 1999, and Mika Igbanoi, born 4 June 2009, their mother being Hirfa Natasita Griffiths. Ms Griffiths had not provided evidence for the appeal, having failed to respond to requests from the independent social worker, Ms Fossung, to assist her with a report. Mr Igbanoi’s daughter Lauren’s evidence at the hearing was that her father had previously had a shared life with Ms Griffiths, Mya and Mika, but an estrangement arose over time between the couple due to his relationship with Ms Leivo, his drug use, and associated convictions. Lauren regularly met Mika when visiting the UK and could see that whilst Mika had a relationship with her father, she was troubled by how he had lived his life. The social worker expressed concern that Mika had been affected by parental conflict, recording Mr Igbanoi’s account of her having self-harmed, behaved dangerously by visiting a boy in Peckham, becoming withdrawn and spending most of her time sleeping.
(c) His son Pier Louis Senarao, born 6 February 2016, who lives in Italy; there was little evidence about him before the First-tier Tribunal, although it recorded its impression that Mr Igbanoi was in touch with him and his family in Italy, and that his daughters Lauren and Mika have got to know Pier, having visited him in Italy.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
5. The First-tier Tribunal found the evidence presented to it credible and thus that Mr Igbanoi had genuine relationships with each of his children: strong ones with Lauren, Mika, and Mya, and a fainter tie with Pier. His three daughters had visited him in prison, and the lack of direct evidence from Mika, Mya and Ms Griffiths was due to the difficult family dynamics occasioned by his offending, which had prevented Mika in particular from inputting to the appeal as she felt torn between her parents, rather than because their ties were not genuine ones. It accepted that Mya was likely to be bipolar given the family history of that condition and Mr Igbanoi’s own medical notes. Mya and Lauren had a close sisterly relationship and Mr Igbanoi had significantly contributed to the success of Ms Leivo’s own studies and subsequent career by supporting Lauren’s childcare; her relatives saw him as a member of her extended family, and he had been a very supportive father to Lauren who always kept his promises. Ms Leivo had been pleased to learn Mr Igbanoi had given up cannabis during his imprisonment and would in the future support him in finding alternative ways of coping with anxiety and mood changes, via appropriate professional support if necessary. The Tribunal accepted Lauren and Ms Leivo’s belief that Mr Igbanoi was making a genuine effort to place his drug fuelled criminal past behind him, and to be a good father to his children, which was also consistent with a letter from his probation officer Ms Prescott which concluded that he had “made significant strides in addressing and changing his previous offending behaviour … [and was] sincerely dedicated to his rehabilitation”; his expulsion “would harm his relationship with his children, who depend on his presence and support … with continued support and the stability provided by remaining in this country [he] will continue to make positive contributions to society and uphold the law.”
6. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that, given Mr Igbanoi’s family life with Lauren and her mother Ms Leivo, and with his daughters Mika and Mya in the context of their lives with their own mother, family life was engaged, and that he would not be a drain on public funds given his ability to integrate in society here. Based on those findings of fact, it found that Mr Igbanoi satisfied two of the statutory exceptions under s117C NIAA 2002:
(a) The private life exception, because he had socially and culturally integrated in this country “to a profound degree, since the age of 14, despite his criminal history, fuelled by drug addiction … this country is where, in his personal journey from that young age, and despite all the pitfalls that he placed in the way of this being realised through his criminality, he has benefitted from, and perhaps surprisingly retained, that most valuable of human commodities, the love and trust of persons who believe that he can reform, and who genuinely and sincerely want him to be part of their lives.” This was notwithstanding the fact that Lauren and her mother now lived in Finland, as the Tribunal gave weight to Lauren having spent some of her formative years in the UK with Mr Igbanoi and having the possibility of his future presence and support here in the future for her planned university studies. It was here that the social structures that would support his continued rehabilitation existed. His degree of integration of itself represented very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria where he only had historical connections and where the society was essentially alien to him.
(b) The family life exception, because of his genuine parental relationship with Mika, a qualifying child, given the detrimental impact his deportation would be likely to have on her welfare as set out in the social worker’s report and given her wish to maintain personal contact with him, evinced by her visits to him in prison, which rendered the consequences of his expulsion “unduly harsh”.
7. It is appropriate to set out some more of the evidence before proceeding to determine the appeal.
(a) The Appellant has a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder; a letter from Beaumont Practice of 6 May 2024 records that he was due a mental health review in person at the surgery on 25 April 2024 for a presenting complaint of low mood symptoms due to adjustment reaction to current life stressor. The Practice goes on to say that he first encountered mental health difficulties on a family trip to Nigeria in 2001, where he experienced a psychotic episode. After returning to UK, he spent an extended period in and out of mental health care institutions in Islington (Ms Fossung adds that he was hospitalised for three months in 2001).
(b) Ms Fossung’s report also noted that in his early years his life was afflicted by poverty. He had had minimal contact with his parents who abandoned him when he was aged one. He had been a victim of childhood sexual abuse and neglect causing unresolved trauma, further exacerbated by his experiences of discrimination and racism in the UK leading him into social disadvantage, poverty and debt. He met his ex-partner Ms Griffiths in homeless accommodation; Miya and Mika were born of that relationship. He played a very active part in their upbringing, taking them to and picking them up from school, and cooking for them. He continued to co-parent them with Ms Griffiths though she had had to be solely responsible for them from his imprisonment in 2020. Lauren had a very good relationship with Miya and Mika, visiting them four times a year. The Appellant prioritised his childrens’ needs and ensured they developed positive relationships with one another and had helped structure lives to assist them with maintaining attendance at school; he now spent quality time with his children including going on visits to London, shopping, bus rides, parks, and eating out. Mika was finding the situation hard to deal with and was dealing with her own challenges including bullying at school, as Lauren had noted; the Appellant said she was more “withdrawn, answers her telephone less often, spends most of her time sleeping”, and that he saw her weekly, though as Mika had not spoken to Ms Fossung it was more difficult to discern her lived experience. Miya was struggling with mental health issues. Both daughters loved their father but saw him differently since he was incarcerated. Nevertheless he was a protective factor in their lives and the potential impact of emotional harm, separation and loss was likely to affect each child in a different way and be a great source of stress on the family. Lauren currently saw him four or five times a year but in future would realistically need to be accompanied by an adult to visit him were he to be deported to Nigeria. He had limited connections to Nigeria having last visited the country in 2010 for his sister’s wedding.
8. It is also appropriate to summarise the Secretary of State’s reasons for the deportation decision. Some have fallen by the wayside as they were predicated on a less full picture of the Appellant's family life having been available to the original decision maker. As the Nigerian constitution stated that a Nigerian citizen would transmit their nationality to any child born abroad there would be no barrier to his children relocating there. It was not thought that his presence in the UK was necessary to prevent any child’s ill treatment, or prevent the impairment of their development, or stop their care being effective, given their respective mothers could continue as their primary carers. He had not provided any evidence of working or attending school in the UK and his long offending history undermined his assertion of being integrated here. It was reasonable to expect him to relocate abroad (as many adults successfully managed) and to live an independent sustainable life. Deportation expressed society’s condemnation of serious criminality, marking serious criminality, and protected the public by being a measure of general deterrence.
9. The sentencing remarks set out that it was said he had received very little financial reward for his dealing and was concerned in the supply of drugs to fund his own habit; he had breached his previous suspended sentence order conditions. This indicated he was unable to support himself without offending. The minor offences of which he had also been convicted including cruelty to an animal, common assault, using disorderly behaviour or threatening, abusive and insulting words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and driving with excess alcohol, indicated that he posed a risk of violence and did not give thought and regard to others, and had a lack of regard for the law and a lack of understanding of his negative offending behaviour and the cost of police resources in investigating and prosecuting it. He seemed to have a lack of regard for court orders and the seriousness of his offending had escalated. It was understood from the Pre-Sentence Report that his mother and siblings still resided in Nigeria and he spoke to them as often as possible. All forms of mental health problems could be treated in Nigeria in public facilities; sheltered housing was available, as was assisted living and care at home from psychiatric nurses in private facilities. Accordingly any mental health difficulties he might face would not reach the high threshold protected by ECHR Art 3 or ECHR Art 8.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
10. The Panel which heard the Secretary of State’s appeal concluded in its decision of 15 August 2025 that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law by
(a) Failing to recognise the high and demanding threshold which the authorities held that the “unduly harsh” test entailed;
(b) Failing to give adequate reasons for its conclusion that Mr Igbanoi would face very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria.
11. Further evidence provided for the continuation hearing includes
(a) A witness statement from the Appellant setting out that he had a very close relationship with Mika’s mother Ms Griffith from 2009 to 2020; it had become strained thereafter, though Mika had visited him in prison. He believed that Mya’s mental health problems had impacted Mika’s attitude to him, as had his imprisonment. It had always been important to him to treat Mika and Lauren equally and to ensure they had a good relationship. Mika’s mother would not let her travel to see him in Nigeria. He wanted to be a positive role model to her and show her that his life had now changed and that it was always possible to make positive changes to one’s life. Lauren and Pierlouis regularly visited him in London and they maintained a close and loving relationship; Lauren spent all her school holidays with him. Deportation to Nigeria would have devastating consequences on his mental health as he had lived in the same flat since 2001 and felt safe and comfortable living in the area he knew well bearing in mind his bipolar disorder, anxiety and depression. He suffered from social anxiety and found new social situations difficult. The sudden loss of this stability, support networks, and possibility to access mental health care would cause severe psychological distress.
(b) A witness statement from Ms Leivo setting out that the Appellant had always been a reliable co-parent albeit their own relationship ended when Lauren was very young. He had supported her and reassured her that they could continue effective co-parenting across the two countries when she moved back to Finland in 2021 for a better work opportunity and to be closer to her family. Despite his struggles, he had consistently been a reliable father to their daughter. She had witnessed significant and positive changes in him and truly believed he had turned his life around, a transformation she believed stemmed in part from his willingness to confront and openly discuss past trauma and difficulties in his life. He was now volunteering weekly at a local food bank where he had built new, supportive friendships that reinforced his positive outlook on life. If he was deported, it would have a devasting impact on his children’ lives: Lauren would not be able to move back to London and pursue her dream of going to university in the UK, and she would not be able to visit him in Nigeria as it would be too expensive and dangerous; it would also have a significant and deeply negative impact on her relationship with Mika. Mika’s emotional development and success in life depended on her maintaining and strengthening her relationship with her father.
(c) A letter from Lauren setting out that she loved spending time with her father and she could talk to him about anything. She loved the Nigerian food he cooked for her. She believed he had changed for the better and she was proud of him and hoped he would have another chance to prove everyone wrong.
12. Given that Mr Igbanoi is a medium-level offender within the statutory scheme, the critical criteria governing this appeal are the two exceptions identified in s117C of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002:
“(4) Exception 1 applies where—
(a) C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C's life,
(b) C is socially and culturally integrated in the United Kingdom, and
(c) there would be very significant obstacles to C's integration into the country to which C is proposed to be deported.
(5) Exception 2 applies where C has … a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and the effect of C's deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh.”
13. The courts have issued numerous decisions on the proper approach to deportation and the assessment of the possibility of future integration abroad. As relevant to this appeal:
(a) Sales LJ in Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813 stated that the concept of integration:
“is not confined to the mere ability to find a job or to sustain life while living in the other country. It is not appropriate to treat the statutory language as subject to some gloss and it will usually be sufficient for a court or tribunal simply to direct itself in the terms that Parliament has chosen to use. The idea of "integration" calls for a broad evaluative judgment to be made as to whether the individual will be enough of an insider in terms of understanding how life in the society in that other country is carried on and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual's private or family life.”
(b) Moylan LJ stated in AS [2017] EWCA Civ 1284 that “generic” factors such as intelligence, employability and general robustness of character are relevant to the “broad evaluative judgment” required in assessing whether there are very significant obstacles to integration abroad and may demonstrate that the person is “enough of an insider” in the Kamara sense.
(c) Underhill LJ in HA (Iraq) [2020] EWCA Civ 1176 §27 addresses the breadth of the family life exception for children, in passages essentially approved by the Supreme Court on appeal in the same case ([2022] UKSC 22):
“… while recognising the "elevated" nature of the statutory test, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the hurdle which it sets is not as high as that set by the test of "very compelling circumstances" in section 117C (6) … the degree of harshness of the impact may be affected by the child's age; by whether the parent lives with them (NB that a divorced or separated father may still have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a child who lives with the mother); by the degree of the child's emotional dependence on the parent; by the financial consequences of his deportation; by the availability of emotional and financial support from a remaining parent and other family members; by the practicability of maintaining a relationship with the deported parent; and of course by all the individual characteristics of the child.”
(d) The statutory requirement that the interference with family life be “unduly harsh” sets a high threshold. Thus the Upper Tribunal’s self-direction in MK [2015] UKUT 223 (IAC) was approved in HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22 by Lord Hamblen §41:
“… ‘unduly harsh’ does not equate with uncomfortable, inconvenient, undesirable or merely difficult. Rather, it poses a considerably more elevated threshold. ‘Harsh’ in this context, denotes something severe, or bleak. It is the antithesis of pleasant or comfortable. Furthermore, the addition of the adverb ‘unduly’ raises an already elevated standard still higher.”
14. The Secretary of State did not challenge the First-tier Tribunal’s acceptance of the oral and witness statement evidence which it considered and so those findings stand. At the error of law stage of proceedings no material error was accepted vis-á-vis the First-tier Tribunal’s positive conclusion as to Mr Igbanoi’s UK integration and so that finding stands preserved.
15. The private life statutory exception has three elements, the first of which, lawful residence in the UK for most of Mr Igbanoi’s life, has never been put in issue. So the continuation hearing now focusses on the questions whether:
(a) He would face very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria within the private life exception (NIAA 2002 s117C(4));
(b) His deportation would have unduly harsh consequences for his family life with his children, within the family life exception (s117C(6));
(c) In the event the first two issues are resolved against Mr Igbanoi, whether there are nevertheless very compelling reasons contraindicating deportation, assessing his case globally (s117C(6)).
Analysis
Exception 1 - Very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria
16. It cannot seriously be suggested that Mr Igbanoi has not lived most of his life in the UK and at the previous hearing the Upper Tribunal rejected the Secretary of State’s challenge to the finding that he was integrated here. That leaves the question of whether he would face very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria. I have set out the Kamara test above. It essentially requires a putative deportee to demonstrate that he will foreseeably be unable to operate on a daily basis such as to participate in society abroad and build up sufficient relationships to give substance to their private life. One can posit various potential relevant considerations: actual relevant experience of life in the relevant destination, the existence of close and extended family abroad, the possibility of support from friends and relatives in the UK and elsewhere including the financial package provided by the Home Office referenced in the reasons for pursuing deportation, the strength of character and possession of practical experience to make one’s way in a new society, and any particular challenges to sustaining one’s new life abroad, including mental health considerations and any social welfare safety net. On a return to Nigeria he would be a man approaching his fifties who has not lived in the country for a very long time. He would have no knowledge of daily life there given he does not appear to have lived amongst the Nigerian diaspora in this country. So it will not be an easy task.
17. Mr Igbanoi does have something by way of family connections abroad, including his mother and siblings as referenced in his pre-sentencing report. It is to be assumed that he maintains contact with his sister whose wedding he attended in 2010, and who at least at one time lived with their brother, and that those siblings would be willing to help him forge whatever connections are necessary to make a new life for himself. His mother id elderly but absent evidence to the contrary, once must again assume that she has a network of connections which will potentially be available to him. One can imagine that nobody involved will be especially enthusiastic about the prospect of helping a deportee settle into their community, but absent cogent evidence as to some degree of family estrangement, one can only presume that natural human affection and concern will encourage his relatives abroad to lend him whatever assistance they can. Mr Igbanoi has shown himself able to work in the regular labour market when the opportunity has arisen and, unfortunate that it is, to sustain himself economically via criminal transactions. I do not suggest he should continue to do so Nigeria, but his offending history shows some ability to negotiate small scale commerce. These considerations are relevant to Moylan LJ’s “generic” factors such as intelligence, employability and general robustness of character adumbrated as set out in AS. And of course he has his family in the UK and Finland who would be able to remit funds to him.
18. It is said on his behalf that he has suffered from significant mental health problems. However there is no independent evidence of any such problems in recent years, and in fact there is very little medical evidence of the severity of the problems whatsoever. I accept on balance of probabilities it is likely that Mr Igbanoi suffered from a serious psychosis in the past, itself unsurprising given the extent of his drug use, given his recitation of the medication he received and the general confirmation of his account found in the letter from GP Dr Kalimuthu of May 2024; but I cannot accept absent cogent evidence that he faces any real risk of its future recurrence, particularly given his account of now being free from drugs. For example the GP’s letter of May 2024 recounts that his mental state was improving from recent depression and that he had not experienced further psychotic episodes, without receiving psychotropic medications for the past twelve years. Doubtless the need to rebuild his life again from scratch in Nigeria will have a negative impact on his mental health, but one cannot extrapolate from that reasonable starting point that he faces a probable deterioration in his psychological state as to render him incapable of surviving in Nigerian society. And he has of course chosen to mix in criminal circles, albeit at a low level, over many years during which time the government’s deportation policy (and thus the need to contemplate the possibility of life in his country of origin) has been very well known.
19. I conclude that he has not established that he faces very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria.
Exception 2 - unduly harsh consequences for his family life
20. It must be acknowledged at the outset that Mr Igbanoi’s connections with his children have been at best intermittent. Lauren, born in 2008 and now almost eighteen, now lives with her mother in Finland and her connection with the UK has been interrupted since she moved there in around 2021; she has however spent a significant period of time here and wishes to return here in the future. Mya was born in 1999 and is now well into her twenties. Mika was born in 2009 and is now aged sixteen. The Appellant's latest witness statement asserts that he had a very close relationship with Mika’s mother, Ms Griffiths, though this is difficult to reconcile with the information from Ms Fossung that that relationship had become more difficult due to Mr Igbanoi’s relationship with Ms Leivo (from before 2008), or with her absence throughout the appeal proceedings.
21. One indicia of the extent to which the family relationships have splintered over time was that Ms Fossung was unable to speak to Ms Griffiths, Mika or Maya over the period when she wrote her report. The information she gathered about their relationships came primarily from Lauren and Ms Leivo; the information the Judge below received about the family relationships was from Ms Leivo. This is a rather unpromising basis on which to erect a case that life for the only remaining UK-resident minor child, Mika, would be unduly harsh in her father’s absence.
22. I readily accept that the Appellant’s presence in the UK may well be the glue that keeps the blended family of Lauren, Mika and Maya in touch with one another. But it is very difficult to see how his presence his vital to the individual growth or emotional sustenance of any of these young people; or that his absence would inflict meaningful emotional damage upon them, or would greatly change the (one fears, unresolved) parental conflict that led to Ms Fossung’s concerns as to Mika’s erratic behaviour. Notably there has been no psychiatric evidence adduced as to Mika’s mental health. The presence of her father might well assist her emotional development if their relationship continued to prosper; but his offending choices have already damaged their relationship, and it cannot reasonably be said that he is truly vital to her well-being going forwards.
23. There is nothing to prevent Ms Leivo and Lauren visiting Mr Igbanoi in Nigeria. Doubtless there are flights available between the countries. Lauren only sees him a few times a year in any event. He could travel internally within the country if he did not reside in a city near an airport. It would be a shame if Lauren is discouraged from her planned studies in the UK by her father’s deportation; but it is to be presumed that Ms Leivo retains other links here, and it is difficult to see that someone with his long criminal history and lengthy estrangement from Mika and Maya would really make a great difference to Lauren’s ability to study successfully in this country if she applies her mind to the project.
24. Whatever relationship that Mr Igbanoi has with Pierlouis, who lives in Italy, must be relatively faint given the absence of any detail in the supporting evidence, and there is no cogent evidence to suggest that it requires his presence in the UK.
25. I conclude that the high threshold of undue harshness, implying an elevated degree of bleakness, is not established vis-á-vis the Appellant's family life with his various children.
Very compelling considerations
26. At the residual stage in considering matters I should have regard to all relevant considerations. I have already made findings on Mr Igbanoi’s private and family life in so far as s117C of the NIAA 2002 provides a Parliamentary-endorsed framework for the enquiry. To reiterate, I do not accept he would face very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria, nor that his deportation entails unduly harsh consequences to the various children impacted by it. Nevertheless I place such ties as I have identified above on the positive side of the balance.
27. It is rather difficult to find other factors to balance in his favour on the hypothetical proportionality scales. He does not have any established career or business in the UK and he has referenced no close relationships of dependency with any other individuals beyond those already set out. He has friends from the food bank where he volunteers but those are not relationships incapable of replication abroad. Doubtless it would be desirable and fulfilling for the various members of his extended blended family to develop their potential relationships with one another to the maximum possible extent, and for Lauren to feel fully supported in any future UK-based studies; but these are relatively faint family life interests when weighed against the national policy to maintain public confidence in the immigration and criminal justice systems.
28. On the public interest side of the scales, there are various factors to consider. Mr Igbanoi’s criminality has occasioned significant costs to the state, in processing numerous criminal charges and for the security and accommodation arrangements entailed by his lengthy spell of imprisonment. There is a need to deter criminal conduct generally by making it clear that the usual consequence of significant criminality (he is a medium level offender in the statutory scheme, but in the context of lengthy involvement in the social scourge which is the drugs trade) is deportation. And there is also the need to reassure the settled population here that the national immigration policy is an effective one. These considerations all weigh firmly against him.
29. As to rehabilitation which is very relevant to the need to protect the public in the future, doubtless it is to his credit that he has recently stayed clear of drugs, the driving force behind his offending, for some time now. I acknowledge his glowing reference from Probation Officer Prescott stating that he has shown himself to be very capable of change, and that deportation would have a detrimental impact on his mental and emotional wellbeing, disrupting the stability he has worked hard to establish and the progress he has made towards leading a law-abiding life. But realistically once must recognise that the period of rehabilitation is rather short. He was only convicted of the most serious offence in April 2022, receiving a three-and-a-half year sentence, for offending in early 2020 and 2022. It is not clear when he was released from prison though Ms Fossung refers to him having his own flat since 2022, so I infer that he served minimal time after the actual sentence because he had already been on remand from early 2020; he is under licence until November 2025. This is a very short period of time in comparison to the previous 25 years during which time he committed some 33 offences, right up until his mid-forties. He had been unemployed in the years running up to the conviction in 2022. So whilst the evidence of rehabilitation counts in his favour, it arises in a context of a very long history of offending and is accompanied only by relatively faint evidence of family life, where his children still resident in the UK have barely engaged with the appeals process. And it is also rehabilitation of the most mild kind, by way of an absence of reoffending. Underhill LJ in SM (Zimbabwe) [2021] EWCA Civ 1566 at [38] noted that “the mere fact that a foreign criminal is unlikely to offend again (what I might call "plain rehabilitation") may not carry great weight by itself”; really something more is required before this factor is a significant one.
30. Stepping back from the individual factors involved, I am driven to conclude that the factors on the public interest side of the scales significantly outweigh those on this particular family’s side. Deportation is of course usually a tragedy for those caught up in its sad consequences; but it is the price that must be paid for significant criminality absent special circumstances not here present.
Notice of Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.

24 February 2026

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Symes

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber