Engin Yalcin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 74
Khadija Akhtar v Secretary of State for the Home Department
16 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 354
Court of Appeal
A woman was ordered to leave the UK after being convicted of a crime. She argued she should stay because of her family and long life in the UK. The court decided the government's reasons for making her leave were stronger than her reasons to stay.
Key Facts
- •Khadija Akhtar, a 62-year-old Pakistani national, lived in the UK since 1985 and was granted ILR in 2000.
- •She and her husband were convicted in 2016 of mortgage fraud and received sentences totaling 4 years and 3 months and 11 years respectively.
- •The Secretary of State ordered her deportation to Pakistan.
- •Akhtar has five adult British citizen children, one of whom, Altaf, has significant needs.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed Akhtar's appeal, finding that while she had a strong private and family life in the UK, it did not outweigh the public interest in deportation.
Legal Principles
Deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest; more serious offenses warrant greater public interest in deportation.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (2002 Act), section 117C(1)-(2)
For serious offenders (sentenced to at least four years), deportation is required unless there are 'very compelling circumstances over and above' those in Exceptions 1 and 2 of section 117C.
2002 Act, section 117C(6)
Exceptions 1 and 2 relate to long-term lawful residence, social/cultural integration, and unduly harsh effects on family. The 'very compelling circumstances' test allows consideration of factors beyond these exceptions.
2002 Act, section 117C(4), (5); NA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 662; HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22; Yalcin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 74
The 'very compelling circumstances' test requires a full proportionality assessment, weighing all relevant circumstances against the strong public interest in deportation. It will be a high threshold.
HA (Iraq), paragraphs 46-71
Tribunals are not required to explicitly address each Exception when considering 'very compelling circumstances'. The focus should be on a complete proportionality assessment, identifying significant factors and their relative importance.
Yalcin, paragraphs 49-67
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The UT correctly applied the law, considering all relevant factors in a full proportionality assessment. While not explicitly listing every factor considered under Exceptions 1 and 2 when assessing 'very compelling circumstances', the UT's decision, read as a whole, demonstrates that these factors were implicitly considered. The UT found Akhtar's private and family life in the UK, while strong, did not outweigh the compelling public interest in deportation.
Similar Cases
William Gadinala v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1410
FN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1350
Mawande Sicwebu v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 550
Gurdeep Kaur v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1353