The Secretary of State for the Home Department v TC
[2023] UKUT 164 (IAC)
S M v Secretary Of State For The Home Department
27 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 323 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
A refugee in the UK was convicted of a crime and the Home Office tried to revoke his refugee status. A court ruled that although there was a minor mistake in the lower court's decision, the refugee's status was correctly revoked because he hadn't shown he wasn't a danger to the public. The case also clarifies how UK law deals with removing refugees after Brexit.
Key Facts
- •SM, an Eritrean national, was granted refugee status and leave to remain in 2007, later receiving ILR in 2012.
- •In 2019, SM was convicted of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to imprisonment.
- •The Home Office sought to revoke SM's refugee status and deport him, citing his criminal conviction and danger to the community (section 72 NIAA 2002).
- •The First-tier Tribunal dismissed SM's appeal, finding he hadn't rebutted the presumption of danger to the community.
- •SM appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing the First-tier Tribunal erred in not adequately considering relevant evidence and the principles in *Essa* post-Brexit.
Legal Principles
The principles in *Essa* (revocation of protection status appeals) [2018] UKUT 00244 (IAC) remain applicable post-Brexit, despite the Qualification Directive no longer applying.
Essa (post-EU exit)
Post-Brexit, a grant of leave to remain as a refugee is an act under domestic law, not a grant of European Refugee Status.
This case
Revoking refugee leave post-Brexit is an act under domestic law, not an application of Article 14 of the Qualification Directive.
This case
Section 72 NIAA 2002 provides a 'national gloss' on Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention, potentially leading to decisions not aligning with international law interpretations.
Essa
Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention is an exception to non-refoulement, not a mechanism for withdrawing refugee status. A person remains a Convention refugee but is 'removable'.
This case
Even if an appeal is dismissed under section 72(10) NIAA 2002, the Tribunal must still determine whether the decision breaches UK obligations under the Refugee Convention; this is crucial for determining rights pending removal.
Essa
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed SM's appeal.
While the First-tier Tribunal made an error by not explicitly addressing the relevant ground of appeal under section 84(3) NIAA 2002, this error didn't affect the outcome. The Tribunal correctly applied section 72(10) NIAA 2002, dismissing the appeal due to SM's failure to rebut the presumption of danger to the community.
Similar Cases
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)
Emilio Branco-Bonfim, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1421
Taulant Dani v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kingsley Manyo
[2024] UKUT 362 (IAC)