Introduction

The case of Jarusevicius serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the interplay between criminal convictions and the acquisition of permanent residence under the European Economic Area (EEA) Regulations. The appellant, Nerijus Jarusevicius, a Lithuanian national, challenged the decision to deport him on the grounds that his imprisonment should not disrupt his eligibility for permanent residence in the United Kingdom. This commentary delves into the background, key issues, involved parties, and the broader legal implications established by this judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed Jarusevicius’s appeal against his deportation order. The Tribunal concluded that the time he spent in prison did not count towards the continuous five-year lawful residence required under Regulation 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Additionally, his criminal conviction for conspiracy to handle stolen goods was deemed sufficient to constitute serious grounds of public policy, justifying his removal from the UK.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that influenced the Tribunal’s decision:

• LG and CC (Italy) [2009] UKAIT 00024: Held that imprisonment does not count towards the ten-year residence required for higher protection under Regulation 21(4).
• SO (Nigeria) [2011] UKUT 00164 (IAC): Established that any period spent in prison breaks the continuity of residence required for permanent residency under Regulation 15(1)(a).
• Tsakouridis (C-145/09): Clarified that imprisonment should be considered as part of the overall assessment of residence continuity.
• Dias v SSHD [2011] EUECJ C-325/09 and Maria Dias v SSHD: Explored how imprisonment impacts the accumulation of residence duration under the EEA regulations.
• Carvalho [2010] EWCA Civ 1406: Affirmed that time spent in custody does not contribute to the qualifying period for permanent residence.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's stance that imprisonment undermines the continuity of lawful residence necessary for permanent residency under EEA regulations.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal’s legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of Regulation 15(1)(a), which requires five years of continuous lawful residence for an EEA national to acquire permanent residency. The critical points in the reasoning included:

• Definition of Lawful Residence: Time spent in prison was not considered lawful residence as it interrupted the continuous period required for permanent residency.
• Impact of Criminal Convictions: The appellant’s involvement in a conspiracy to handle stolen goods was classified as a serious criminal offense, thereby constituting serious grounds of public policy under Regulation 21.
• Case Law Alignment: The judgment aligned with existing case law that differentiates between the acquisition and loss of permanent residence rights, reinforcing that criminal activities can nullify the eligibility for such rights.

The Tribunal maintained that even in scenarios where the appellant might have met the residence requirements, his criminal conduct presented a sufficient threat to public policy, justifying deportation.

Impact

The Jarusevicius judgment sets a clear precedent that periods of imprisonment do not contribute to the lawful residence period required for permanent residency under EEA regulations. This decision impacts future cases by:

• Clarifying Residence Continuity: Reinforcing that any interruption in lawful residence, including imprisonment, resets the qualifying period for permanent residency.
• Strengthening Public Policy Considerations: Affirming that serious criminal conduct can override residency rights, thereby influencing deportation decisions.
• Guiding Immigration Authorities: Providing a judicial framework for assessing the impact of criminal convictions on immigration status, ensuring consistency in deportation rulings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid understanding, the judgment involves several complex legal concepts:

• Lawful Residence: Refers to the period during which an individual resides in a country legally, complying with all relevant immigration laws and regulations.
• Continuous Residence: A requirement that an individual must reside without significant interruptions to qualify for certain immigration benefits, such as permanent residency.
• Regulation 15(1)(a): A specific provision under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 that outlines the criteria for acquiring permanent residence in the UK.
• Serious Grounds of Public Policy: Grounds that justify the removal of an individual from a country due to their actions posing a threat to the public interest or security.
• Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC: EU legislation that defines the rights of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

Conclusion

The Jarusevicius [2012] UKUT 120 (IAC) judgment underscores the stringent criteria for acquiring permanent residence under EEA regulations, particularly emphasizing that imprisonment disrupts the continuity of lawful residence necessary for such status. By aligning its decision with established precedents, the Tribunal reinforced the principle that serious criminal conduct can negate residency rights, thereby safeguarding public policy interests. This case serves as a critical reference point for both legal practitioners and immigration authorities in assessing the eligibility of individuals seeking permanent residency amidst criminal convictions.