UI2024001121 & UI2024001122

             The matter came before us to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and thus whether the decision should be set aside.

             It was argued that the identified errors either individually or cumulative were material to the judge's assessment of the proportionality, in terms of Article 8(2) of the ECHR, of the appellant's deportation and that they demonstrated that the judge's application of Article 8, in terms of section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

         NA (Pakistan) v SSHD & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 662 confirmed that an appellant sentenced to less than four years in prison who falls outside of the exceptions listed in Paragraphs 117C(4) and 117C(5) may rely on the exception in Paragraph 117C(6). It was held at paragraph 32 that:

'when considering whether there are very compelling circumstances over and above Exceptions 1 and 2, all the relevant circumstances of the case will be considered and weighed against the very strong public interest in deportation'.

         Ground 2 also argued that the judge erroneously proceeded on the basis that the decision would be returning the family to the same situation they were in 2019, when they had been successfully conducting family life with the appellant in Portugal and his wife and children in Bangladesh. It was argued that the judge had failed to consider the appellant's wife's evidence that her anxiety had increased.