Key Facts
- •Appeal against Upper Tribunal's decision to set aside First-tier Tribunal's determination granting the appellant leave to remain in the UK.
- •Appellant, a St Kitts and Nevis national, feared reprisal from a former friend and claimed very significant obstacles to integration if returned.
- •First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the appellant's subjective fear, while the Upper Tribunal found an error of law in not considering objective factors.
- •The appeal focused on the meaning of "very significant obstacles to integration" under paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules (now superseded).
Legal Principles
The concept of "integration" in immigration cases is broad, requiring a broad evaluative judgment considering the individual's capacity to participate in and be accepted by the society of the country to which they would be returned.
Kamara v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 813
The tribunal's task is to assess the obstacles to integration and decide whether they are "very significant."
Parveen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 932
The test for obstacles to integration is not purely subjective; it requires consideration of objective evidence and reasonable steps to mitigate obstacles.
Lal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1925
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by focusing solely on the appellant's subjective fear without considering objective evidence of state protection and family connections in St Kitts and Nevis. It failed to conduct the required broad evaluative judgment and consider reasonable steps to mitigate the perceived obstacles.