UI2024002446

             First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell ('the judge') dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 18 April 2024. The judge summarised the background to the appeal, including the respondent's reasons for refusing the human rights claim [4]-[16]. The judge went on to set out the evidence and submissions at the hearing in some detail [21]-[70]. Under the heading 'Legal Framework and Findings' the judge then set out his reasons for the decision [72]-[87].

             The judge then turned to consider the relevant test in a case involving a sentence of at least 4 years imprisonment. He noted that section 117C(6) required the appellant to show that there were very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions [74]. The judge went on to say:

'Although it is asserted in the skeleton argument that the appellant would meet the requirements of Exception 1, I find that to be incorrect. Whilst I can accept that the appellant has spent the majority of his life in this country it is arguable that he is not fully integrated in the UK, in view of his criminal record.'

             The judge did not appear to make any further findings in relation to any other circumstances that might be relevant to the assessment of whether the appellant was socially and culturally integrated in the UK for the purpose of section 117C(4)(b) or with reference to any of the principles identified in relevant case law on this issue: see Binbuga (Turkey) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 551 , CI (Nigeria) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 2027 , and AM (Somalia) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 774 .

             The judge went straight from considering section 117C(4)(b) to stating at [76] that the key question was whether the appellant had established 'very compelling circumstances' over and above the exceptions that might outweigh the public interest in deportation. He confirmed that he had considered the evidence taken as a whole [77].