Exception 1 of Section 117C(4): “Very Significant Obstacles to Integration” – Adequacy of Reasons for Deportation of EU Nationals to EU States

Introduction

This case, Ackom v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2025] EWCA Civ 537), arises from the Secretary of State’s appeal against a First‐tier Tribunal (FtT) decision allowing Mr Ackom, a German national of Ghanaian heritage, to resist deportation on human rights grounds. Mr Ackom arrived in the UK at age 7, spent his formative years here, but did not regularise his status before Brexit. After a series of drug‐related convictions, including two offences of possession of cocaine with intent to supply, he received a custodial sentence totaling 49 months. The Secretary of State issued a deportation order under the UK Borders Act 2007 but the FtT found that Mr Ackom satisfied Exception 1 of section 117C(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the “2002 Act”), namely that there would be “very significant obstacles” to his integration in Germany. The Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld that decision, and the Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal—the first post-Brexit decision on applying s.117C(4)(c) to an EU national returning to an EU state.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, by a majority, allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. It held that the FtT judge either failed properly to apply the elevated test of “very significant obstacles to integration” as articulated in Kamara v Secretary of State [2016] EWCA Civ 813, or gave insufficient reasons for concluding it was met in Mr Ackom’s case. In particular, the judge did not explain why a fit, educated young man with some familiarity with German life (having lived there until age 7), intelligence, resilience and access to social support and benefits would be unable to integrate into Germany. The court declined to remake the decision, and instead remitted the case for rehearing before a different FtT judge.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Kamara v Secretary of State [2016] EWCA Civ 813 – Sales LJ defined the broad concept of “integration” and stressed the elevated threshold implied by “very significant obstacles.”
Sanambar v Secretary of State [2021] UKSC 30 – The Supreme Court affirmed Kamara’s approach, emphasising that “integration” requires evaluative judgment about insider status in the receiving society.
AS (Iran) v Secretary of State [2017] EWCA Civ 1284 – Held that generic factors (health, intelligence, adaptability) properly inform the integration assessment.
Parveen v Secretary of State [2016] EWCA Civ 932 – Confirmed elevated threshold: mere hardship or difficulty will not suffice; obstacles must be “very significant.”
Treebhawon v Secretary of State [2017] UKUT 13 (IAC) – UT guidance that “very significant” connotes an elevated threshold beyond mere hurdles.
Binbuga v Secretary of State [2019] EWCA Civ 551 – Social integration may include participation in clubs, workplaces or places of study.
NC v Secretary of State [2023] EWCA Civ 1379 – Emphasised tribunal must consider any reasonable steps to mitigate obstacles.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal began by restating the statutory framework: under section 117C(4) of the 2002 Act, foreign criminals with sentences under four years face deportation unless Exception 1 or 2 applies. Exception 1 requires three limbs:

Lawful residence in the UK for most of the individual’s life;
Social and cultural integration in the UK;
“Very significant obstacles” to integration in the proposed country of deportation.

It was common ground that Mr Ackom met the first two limbs; the dispute concerned the third. The court reaffirmed that the test for “very significant obstacles” is an elevated, holistic assessment: tribunals must evaluate whether the individual can acquire “insider” status—understanding societal norms, participating day‐to‐day and building relationships—within a reasonable time.

In this case, the FtT judge identified Mr Ackom’s lack of ties, unfamiliarity with German culture, inability to speak German and his criminal record as obstacles. However, she accepted he could claim German benefits and failed to explain why these factors, taken cumulatively, would shut off his capacity to integrate. She did not address generic mitigating factors—his education, intelligence, resilience, football skills—or the fact that Germany shares EU cultural and legal norms with the UK. The Court of Appeal held that either the judge misapplied the Kamara principles or gave inadequate reasons for her evaluative conclusion.

Impact

This decision clarifies that in deportation appeals under s.117C(4)(c) involving EU nationals returning to EU states:

Tribunals must apply the Kamara test expressly and holistically, taking into account both contextual factors in the receiving state and individual characteristics.
Reasoning must explain—especially when the destination is culturally and structurally akin to the UK—why the identified obstacles reach the high threshold of “very significant.”
Failure to articulate a proper evaluative judgment or to address generic factors may constitute an error of law or insufficient reasoning, justifying appellate intervention.

Future cases will require detailed, contextualised reasoning where the prospective country of return is an EU member state with comparable societal norms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Foreign Criminal – A non-British citizen convicted in the UK of an offence resulting in at least 12 months’ imprisonment.
Exception 1 (s.117C(4)) – A statutory carve-out to deportation if three conditions are met, protecting private life under Article 8 ECHR.
Very Significant Obstacles to Integration – A high bar requiring that an individual would face serious, enduring impediments to becoming an “insider” in the destination society.
Evaluative Judgment – A tribunal’s broad appraisal of personal, social and cultural factors, not a tick-box exercise.
Elevated Threshold – The inclusion of “very” means routine inconveniences or hardships do not qualify; obstacles must be substantial and restrictive.

Conclusion

Ackom v SSHD establishes that when assessing Exception 1’s third limb for EU nationals to EU states, tribunals must:

Apply the “very significant obstacles” test as defined in Kamara and Sanambar;
Engage with both specific ties and generic personal attributes that bear on integration;
Provide clear, contextualised reasons explaining why the obstacles identified prevent or seriously inhibit integration, even in a culturally similar society;
Recognise that acceptance of social benefits or shared societal norms may mitigate apparent barriers;
Ensure appellate courts can trace the tribunal’s evaluative pathway to confirm rationality and legal compliance.

This judgment reinforces procedural rigour in Article 8 deportation appeals and underscores the need for transparent reasoning whenever a high statutory threshold is invoked.