United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00419/2014

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 17th November 2014	On 17th November 2014

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

 

 

Between

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant

and

 

mr ndricim hoda

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE

Respondent

 

 

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms J Isherwood (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

For the Respondent: Mr J Well (Malik & Malik, Solicitors)

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.             This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Secretary of State in relation to a Determination of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Oliver and Mr J H Eames) promulgated on 25^th June 2014.

 

2.             The Secretary of State made a decision to deport the Appellant after he was sentenced to two-years imprisonment following a conviction of wealth conceal/advising/converting/transferring/removing criminal property. The Appellant was apprehended with 250,000 Euros in a vehicle he was seeking to take out of the country. It was his appeal against that order which came before the First-tier Tribunal.

 

3.             The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal on human rights grounds.

 

4.             The Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds. Her reasons for granting permission were as follows:-

 

“Whilst the panel set out the provisions of Regulation 21 of the 2006 Regulations at [42], it is arguable in their findings at [43] and [44] the panel failed to have regard to the principles of proportionality in accordance with those Regulations. In particular, whether the Appellant represented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society including the issue of rehabilitation identified in Essa. The panel also appeared to conflate issues under the EEA Regulations with Article 8."

 

5.             Before me Ms Isherwood also relied upon the Court of Appeal's decision in Essa [2012] EWCA Civ 1718. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to be decided by the Upper Tribunal but in its deliberations [12] and [13] the Court of Appeal decided that the question of rehabilitation under the Regulations and the Article 8 assessment were separate matters to be to considered separately.

 

6.             It is clear that Essa [2013] UKUT 316 (IAC) has established that when considering deportation the question of whether a potential deportee’s rehabilitation will be prejudiced by the deportation and the effect it will have on the other member State must be taken into account.

 

7.             Mr Well sought to defend the determination, while conceding that the reasoning was brief, but arguing that it contained enough and that paragraph 44 contained a consideration of all matters contained in Regulation 21.

 

8.             I find that I am unable to uphold the determination of the First-tier Tribunal. Despite the determination’s length (12 pages), the findings occupy only two paragraphs on the final page. At paragraph 42 the Tribunal set out Regulation 21 but then in paragraphs 43 and 44 failed to deal with any of the matters contained therein. They completely failed to deal with the issue of rehabilitation and failed to give proper reasoning as to why it was they concluded that the Appellant did not constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Furthermore, the panel did not give reasons or adequate reasons as to why the Appellant’s wife cannot be expected to reside with him in Albania. In short, the findings and reasons are wholly inadequate. I set aside the determination in its entirety.

9.             The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed and I direct that it be heard by the First-tier Tribunal de novo by a differently constituted panel.

 

 

Signed Date 17^th November 2014

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin