Introduction

Terrelonge [2015] UKUT 653 (IAC) is a significant judgment delivered by Upper Tribunal Judge Gill in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. The case revolves around Keron George Mcleod Terrelonge, a Jamaican national facing a deportation order under the Immigration Rules (IR) 1999, specifically paragraph 399(b). The appellant challenged the decision to deport him based on his Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect his private and family life. The core issues pertain to the strict application of paragraph 399(b), the appellant's relationship status, his medical condition, and the public interest in deportation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss Terrelonge's appeal against his deportation order. The Second Panel of the First-tier Tribunal had previously affirmed the deportation on the grounds that it was conducive to the public good, given Terrelonge's criminal conviction and the absence of compelling circumstances to outweigh public interest. Terrelonge contended that his relationship with Ms. Walker and his medical condition constituted sufficient reasons to reverse the deportation order under paragraph 399(b) of the IR. However, the Upper Tribunal Judge concluded that Terrelonge failed to meet the conjunctive requirements of paragraph 399(b)(i), particularly regarding the timing and nature of his relationship in relation to his precarious immigration status.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several pivotal cases and legislative provisions that influenced the court's decision:

• McLarty (2014) UKUT 315 (IAC): Emphasized the balance of proportionality in deportation cases, reinforcing the weight of public interest in such decisions.
• Mahad (2010) UKSC 16 and Odelola (2009) 1 WLR 1230: These cases provided a framework for interpreting the Immigration Rules, particularly in relation to the construction of ordinances against immigration objectives.
• Nasim & Others (2014) UKUT 25 (IAC): Clarified that a person's human rights are not enhanced merely by not committing further offenses or avoiding public funds.
• EB (Kosovo) [2008] UKHL 41 and VW (Uganda) [2009] EWCA Civ 5: Reinforced the considerations surrounding Article 8 rights and the proportionality of deportation measures.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinges on the interpretation of paragraph 399(b) of the Immigration Rules, which provides grounds for revoking a deportation order under certain conditions. Specifically, paragraph 399(b)(i) requires that any relationship relied upon for revocation must have been established when the appellant had stable immigration status, which was not compromised by deception or criminal conduct, and prior to the notification of deportation liability.

In Terrelonge's case, the Upper Tribunal found that his relationship with Ms. Walker began in 2004, after he had already been notified of his deportation liability in 2002. This temporal sequence rendered the relationship formed during a period when his immigration status was precarious due to his status as a "foreign criminal" under s.32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 and s.117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. As a result, paragraph 399(b)(i) was not satisfied, precluding consideration of undue hardship under paragraphs 399(b)(ii) and (iii).

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish "very compelling circumstances" beyond those outlined in paragraphs 399 and 399A to outweigh the public interest in deportation. The tribunal upheld the stringent public interest factors, including Terrelonge's serious criminal conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, the implications for public safety, and the limited evidence of familial ties that could mitigate the deportation.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the strict application of paragraph 399(b) in deportation cases, emphasizing that relationships established during periods of precarious immigration status are insufficient grounds for revoking deportation orders. It underscores the prioritization of public interest, particularly in cases involving serious criminal convictions, over individual claims to family and private life.

Future cases involving deportation appeals will reference Terrelonge for its clear delineation of the conditions under which paragraph 399(b)(i) can be successfully invoked. It also delineates the boundaries of what constitutes "very compelling circumstances," setting a high bar for appellants seeking revocation of deportation orders on the basis of family and private life.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Paragraph 399(b) of the Immigration Rules

This provision allows for the revocation of a deportation order if the individual can demonstrate that their removal would lead to undue hardship for their family life in the UK. It has three subparts:

• (i) The relationship must have been established when the individual had stable and secure immigration status.
• (ii) It must be shown that it would be unduly harsh for the family members to live in the individual's home country.
• (iii) It must also be shown that it would be unduly harsh for the family members to remain in the UK without the individual.

"Foreign Criminal"

Defined under s.32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 and s.117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, this term refers to non-British citizens convicted of serious offenses in the UK, which inherently make their immigration status precarious and subject to deportation.

Precarious Immigration Status

A status deemed "precarious" indicates that an individual's right to remain in the UK is not secure and can be revoked due to factors like criminal conduct or obtaining settled status through deceptive means.

Article 8 of the ECHR

Protects the right to respect for private and family life. In deportation cases, it requires that any interference with this right must be proportionate and justified by a legitimate aim, such as public safety.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in Terrelonge [2015] UKUT 653 (IAC) serves as a pivotal reaffirmation of the stringent criteria under paragraph 399(b) of the Immigration Rules for revoking deportation orders. By meticulously analyzing the temporal and substantive aspects of Terrelonge's relationships and his criminal background, the tribunal underscored the paramount importance of public interest and immigration control over individual claims to family and private life in deportation contexts. This judgment oscillates the balance further in favor of robust immigration enforcement, setting a high threshold for appellants seeking humanitarian relief based on familial and medical grounds.