UI2024005195

             The SSHD has appealed against that decision. The test for me to decide is whether the judge made an error of law, not whether I or another judge might have decided the appeal differently or expressed themselves differently, bearing in mind that different tribunals without illegality or irrationality may reach different conclusions on the same case (see Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 201 at [26]).

             I have concluded for the reasons I explain below that the judge did not make any error of law and so I dismiss the SSHD's appeal.

             There is only one ground, failing to give adequate reasons for findings on a material matter. There may be a debate whether there are three or four separate points raised by the grounds, but for these purposes I adopt Mr Umoh's rule 24/skeleton argument response identifying four separate points which I summarise:

(i)              The judge failed to make an explicit finding that Mr Umoh did not pose a threat to public policy, public security or public health, nor that his deportation was disproportionate (paragraph 3);

(ii)            The judge failed to consider that low risk is not the same as no risk (paragraph 4);