UI2022004214

            The appellant's appeal was previously allowed by the First-tier Tribunal ('the FtT') in October 2020 but the Secretary of State successfully appealed and on 26 th July 2021 the matter was remitted to the FtT by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb with some findings preserved. The matter was thus subsequently heard by the judge who also allowed the appeal.

            A non molestation order in relation to the appellant's ex wife was made in 2019 following the breakdown of his marriage and the appellant subsequently was convicted of the offences listed. He was also made the subject of a restraining order effective to 4 th September 2022 preventing him from contacting either his ex-wife or his daughter. His appeal against conviction and sentence to the Crown Court was dismissed.

            The judge proceeded to find the appellant had a family life with his son despite the preserved finding by UTJ Grubb that the appellant did not have a ''parental relationship' with his son. This finding, based on the potential for a relationship with the son, was in the face of the fact that the son did not wish to have a relationship with the appellant.

            At [14] the judge found the appellant was socially and culturally integrated into the UK on the basis of his length of residence and his relationship with his children but even the appellant's representative accepted that there was a strong public interest in the appellant's deportation [18(viii)]. Section 117C did apply and there was no basis for finding that exception 1 or 2 applied nor that there were very compelling circumstances such that the appellant's Article 8 rights outweighed the public interest.

            At the hearing Ms Rushforth submitted that the judge in his brief reasoning at [20], when commenting on the lack of evidence from the Crown Court, failed to have regard to Wilson (NIAA Part 5A; deportation decisions) [2020] UKUT 350 (IAC) particularly headnote 3(d) which held as follows: