The Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) has reported its determination in the case of Yussuf (meaning of “liable to deportation”) [2018] UKUT 00117 (IAC)

The Appellant, who entered the United Kingdom in January 2004 and claimed asylum as a citizen of Somalia. The Appellant appealed against the Respondent’s decision to refuse his asylum claim and as a result of the appeal, the Appellant was granted refugee status and leave to remain on October 2004.

The Appellant committed a number of criminal offences in the United Kingdom and was convicted of attempted wounding and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. In light of these convictions, the Respondent considered whether to revoke the Appellants refugee status but decided not to do so. The Respondent then informed the Appellant that they were proposing to revoke his indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

After appealing against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal, the Appellant’s appeal was heard on the 23 December 2014. The judge observed that the 2 years sentence the Appellant had served was not the first of its kind, and in 2007 the Appellant had a recorded a custodial offence for another wounding incident. The offending history of the Appellant appeared to be linked to problems he had with alcohol, however a worker at St Mungo’s were the defendant was residing confirmed that his behaviour had significantly improved and he had not re- offended.

The Upper Tribunal found that:  Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 impliedly amends section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 by (a) removing the function of the Secretary of State of deeming a person’s deportation to be conducive to the public good, in the case of a foreign criminal within the meaning of the 2007 Act; and (b) substituting an automatic “deeming” provision in such a case. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 make this plain. To that extent Ali (section 6 – liable to deportation) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00250 (IAC) is wrongly decided.

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains an error on a point of law.  The decision is, accordingly, set aside and the matter will be re-made in the Upper Tribunal. You can read a copy of the judgement here.

If you have any queries about the relevance of this case to you and you would like legal advice, feel free to call Kings Cross Barristers to book a consultation with one of our legal experts.