RP001412017

Anonymity should have been granted at an earlier stage of the proceedings because the case involves protection issues. I find that it is appropriate to make an order. Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent.

The decision relating to the protection and human rights claim was made in the context of a contemporaneous decision to make an automatic deportation order under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 following the appellant's conviction for serious criminal offences.

First-tier Tribunal Judge E.M.M. Smith ("the judge") dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on 21 August 2018. He was not satisfied that the appellant had rebutted the presumption that he was a danger to the community for the purpose of section 72(6) of the NIAA 2002. The effect of sections 72(9)-(10) obliged him to dismiss the appeal in so far as it relied on the ground that revocation of protection status would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention.

The judge went on to consider whether the decision to refuse the human rights claim was unlawful with reference to the respondent's policy contained in paragraph 398 of the immigration rules and section 117C(6) of the NIAA 2002. He concluded that there were no 'very compelling circumstances' to outweigh the public interest in deportation of a person who had been sentenced to a period of at least four years' imprisonment.

"Having considered the all of the evidence before me and factoring in whether the appellant would be at risk if returned to Somalia I am satisfied that his deportation is justified and proportionate."