Engin Yalcin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

6 February 2024

[2024] EWCA Civ 74

Court of Appeal

A dad was facing deportation after being convicted of a crime. A lower court said he could stay because of his young sons, one of whom has severe disabilities. A higher court disagreed. But the highest court said the first court's decision was okay, even though it wasn't perfectly written, because they considered all the important factors about the children and the dad's situation. It clarified some complicated rules around deportation and when people can stay despite past crimes.

Key Facts

•The Appellant, a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity, was convicted in 2016 of possessing a prohibited weapon and sentenced to five years and four months in prison.
•The Secretary of State intended to deport him under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
•The Appellant has two British citizen sons and was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2013.
•His human rights claim resisting deportation was initially allowed by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) but overturned by the Upper Tribunal (UT).
•The younger son, D, has significant learning and behavioral difficulties, including an EHCP and DLA.
•The Appellant maintains two hairdressing businesses and provides financial and emotional support to his sons.

Legal Principles

Deportation of a foreign criminal is conducive to the public good (subject to exceptions).

Section 32(4) UK Borders Act 2007

Deportation must not breach a person's Convention rights (Article 8 ECHR).

Section 33(2)(a) UK Borders Act 2007

Proportionality assessment required when Article 8 rights are interfered with; public interest in removal weighed against effect of interference.

Article 8(2) ECHR; Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60

Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 sets out public interest considerations for Article 8 deportation cases.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Part 5A; KO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53

Different approaches to public interest in deportation based on sentence length (medium vs. serious offenders).

Section 117C Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Exceptions to deportation for medium offenders (Exception 1: private life; Exception 2: family life). For serious offenders, 'very compelling circumstances' are needed.

Section 117C Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Best interests of the child are a primary consideration in immigration decisions.

Section 55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009

In serious offender cases, 'very compelling circumstances' must exceed those described in Exceptions 1 and 2.

NA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 662; HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22

Outcomes

Appeal allowed; FTT's decision restored.

The UT's finding that the FTT erred in law was not well-founded. While the FTT's reasoning could have been clearer, it did not misdirect itself in law. The UT's concerns about the FTT's failure to explicitly apply the 'unduly harsh' test and its unjustified redefinition of the public interest were deemed immaterial to the overall conclusion.

Engin Yalcin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v TC

Khadija Akhtar v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Mawande Sicwebu v Secretary of State for the Home Department

FN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department