Anonymised Summary of Court of Appeal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) dated 6 March 2024 which had dismissed the Appellant's appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision. The FTT had allowed the appeal of the Respondent against the Appellant's decision to refuse the Respondent's human rights claim and the associated application to revoke a deportation order made on 15 May 2002.

The Respondent is a citizen of Country A who was convicted in the State in 2002 for an offence involving the importation of a controlled drug. The Respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in the Crown Court. A deportation order was signed and enforced in 2002, and the Respondent was returned to Country A.

The Respondent has an adult child (referred to in the opinion as the Respondent's Son), who was born in the State and therefore is a citizen of the State. The Respondent's Son, his spouse (the Respondent's Daughter-in-Law) and their two minor children (referred to here as Grandchild A and Grandchild B) lived with the Respondent in Country A for many years. In 2019 the Respondent's Son and his family relocated to the State for reasons related to the children's medical and educational needs and have remained there.

On 27 May 2020 the Respondent's Son applied to the Appellant for revocation of the Respondent's deportation order so that the Respondent could join the family in the State. The Appellant refused revocation (decision letters dated 1 April 2021 and supplementary letter dated 8 December 2021). The Respondent appealed the human rights refusal to the FTT under section 82(1) of the relevant statute. The FTT allowed the appeal (finding Article 8 engaged and that very compelling circumstances existed). The UT upheld the FTT on 6 March 2024. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted in January 2025 on multiple grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the refusal to revoke the deportation order interfered with the Respondent's Article 8 ECHR rights (in particular the family-life strand) and, if so, whether that interference was of sufficient gravity to engage Article 8.
2. Whether the FTT applied the statutory framework in sections 117A–117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 correctly when assessing the public interest question and the required threshold of "very compelling circumstances" in a case involving a foreign criminal (a "medium offender").
3. Whether the FTT properly considered all relevant aspects of the public interest in deportation of foreign criminals, including public protection, deterrence and public concern.
4. Whether the FTT erred in treating the issue of likely recourse to public funds (financial independence) as a neutral factor under section 117B(3) when the Respondent's objective (if revocation were ordered) would be to enter and remain in the State.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The FTT erred in its finding that family life existed between the Respondent and her family in the State, focusing unduly on the quality of relationships as they were in 2019 rather than on the family's circumstances at the date of the hearing in 2022.
• The FTT had not followed the structured statutory approach under sections 117A–117D and had instead carried out an impermissible free-standing Article 8 assessment, failing to ask whether there were "very compelling circumstances" over and above the exceptions in section 117C.
• The FTT failed to take adequate account of the wider public interest aspects of deportation of foreign criminals, notably deterrence and public concern, beyond public protection.
• The FTT wrongly treated the Respondent's likely need for public funds as a neutral factor; the judge should have assessed whether the Respondent would be financially independent if permitted to enter and remain in the State (section 117B(3)).

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent relied on the family life with the Respondent's Son and his family, the close interdependency, and expert medical evidence indicating potential harm to the grandchildren and to the Respondent from continued separation.
• The Respondent's litigation friend (the Respondent's Son) made submissions in support of the FTT's decision and the factual findings regarding interdependency and the difficulty of travel and communication for the grandchildren.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Razgar [2004] UKHL 27	The five-question sequential test for Article 8 removal cases (interference; gravity; legality; necessity; proportionality).	The court confirmed the need to apply the Razgar sequence and noted the FTT had regard to that test when assessing Article 8 engagement and proportionality.
AG (Eritrea) [2007] EWCA Civ 801	The evidential threshold for engaging Article 8 on human rights grounds (not especially high).	Referenced to explain the burden of proof on the Respondent and that the threshold for engagement is not especially high.
Kugathas v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 31	Elements of dependency/support that can elevate an adult relationship into Article 8 family life (real/committed/effective support).	The court relied on Kugathas to support the FTT's finding that the Respondent's relationship with her adult child was more than normal emotional ties and amounted to family life due to interdependency.
EV (Philippines) [2014] EWCA Civ 874	Section 55 duty (safeguarding and promoting welfare of children) considered in immigration decisions.	The FTT considered the section 55 duty as explained in EV (Philippines) when assessing the impact on the minor grandchildren and the best interests of the children.
Abbas v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1393	Private life of a person outside the contracting state seeking to develop a private life inside it is not engaged.	The court cited Abbas to differentiate private life (not engaged for the Respondent, who resided in Country A) from family life (which may be engaged).
Beoku-Betts v SSHD [2009] AC 115	The unitary nature of family life: interference with one member can affect rights of others within the family.	Cited to support the proposition that family members in the State can rely on the Article 8 rights of those abroad where the family unit is affected.
Khan v United Kingdom (2014) 58 EHRR SE 15	The contracting state's obligation may, in certain circumstances, require reunification where a family member in the State is prevented from enjoying family life because a relative is denied entry.	Used to illustrate when reunification obligations may arise and to support engagement of family life in the present facts.
S v United Kingdom (1984) 40 DR 196	Article 8 family life may extend beyond nuclear family to other familial relationships where dependency elements exist.	Cited to support that relationships between adults may attract Article 8 protection if additional dependency elements are present.
NA (Pakistan) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 662	Construction of section 117C to provide fall-back protection for medium offenders: very compelling circumstances may prevent deportation.	The court relied on NA (Pakistan) to explain that medium offenders not falling within Exceptions 1 or 2 must nevertheless show very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions.
HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22	Appellate restraint when reviewing specialist fact-finding tribunals; limits on overturning factual findings.	Used to emphasise that appellate courts should be cautious about finding legal error where specialist tribunals have made fact findings and expressed reasons.
Yalcin v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 74	Whether express findings on statutory exceptions are always necessary; tribunals should identify factors given significant weight.	Referenced to show that explicit enumeration of how very compelling circumstances are "over and above" Exceptions 1 and 2 is desirable but not universally required; helped inform the court's view of the FTT's reasoning.
Rhuppiah v SSHD [2018] UKSC 58	Establishment of English language ability and maintenance without recourse to public funds are neutral factors in Article 8 balance.	Cited by the FTT judge and discussed by the court when assessing the status of those factors in the Article 8 balancing exercise.
AH (Sudan) / MA (Somalia) / R (Jones) (authorities cited)	Principles on appellate review, deference to tribunal fact-finding and reasons.	Used to underpin the court's approach to reviewing the FTT's findings and the degree of deference to be shown.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the Razgar sequential questions for Article 8 cases and the statutory framework in sections 117A–117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Engagement of Article 8 (family life):

• The court accepted the legal distinction drawn in Abbas that a person who is resident outside the contracting state normally cannot claim a private life that is protected in that state. The focus therefore was on family life (reunification) because members of the Respondent's family live in the State.
• The court analysed whether family life existed between the Respondent and the family in the State. It noted the FTT's factual findings: the long period of cohabitation in Country A, the Respondent's daily care role for the grandchildren from birth, the particularly close interdependency with the Respondent's Son and Daughter-in-Law, and the medical and educational needs of the grandchildren which motivated the 2019 relocation to the State.
\item>The court referred to Kugathas (real/committed/effective support) and concluded the FTT was entitled to find that the relationship went beyond normal emotional ties and therefore amounted to family life for Article 8 purposes.

Weight attributable to the family's move in 2019:

• The Appellant argued that the primary cause of interference with family life was the family's voluntary move to the State in 2019 and that the FTT focused too heavily on the quality of relationships at that earlier time. The court rejected the assertion that the move was the sole cause of interference.
• The court found the FTT had properly considered evidence as at the date of the hearing in 2022 and had regard to the continuing interdependency and recent medical evidence describing ongoing harm and difficulty in maintaining contact. The FTT therefore did not misdirect itself by over-emphasising the pre-2019 situation.

Statutory framework and the "very compelling circumstances" threshold:

• The court reviewed sections 117A–117D and the interpretation established in NA (Pakistan), explaining that medium offenders (sentences of at least 12 months but less than four years) must show "very compelling circumstances" over and above the exceptions in section 117C in order to succeed against deportation.
• The Appellant submitted the FTT failed to apply this statutory structure and carried out a general Article 8 assessment instead. The court examined the FTT's reasoning and the surrounding authorities (including Yalcin and HA (Iraq)) and observed that while express mention that the "very compelling circumstances" were "over and above" the exceptions would have been preferable, the judge did refer to the high threshold and was aware neither Exception 1 nor Exception 2 applied.
• The court concluded that there was no clear legal misdirection: the FTT appreciated the statutory framework and had weighed the evidence (medical reports, evidence of interdependency, section 55 child welfare considerations) in light of the statutory test. The court accepted that the FTT's conclusion that very compelling circumstances existed was open to it on the facts.

Public interest considerations beyond public protection:

• The Appellant argued that deterrence and public concern were not properly dealt with. The court acknowledged that the FTT focused on public protection (and concluded there was no risk of re-offending) but observed there was no suggestion the FTT had failed to have regard to the community interest in maintaining exclusion. Given the FTT judge's expertise and the reasoning, the court was not persuaded there was a legal error in the way other public interest aspects were treated.

Financial independence and section 117B(3):

• The court identified a material legal error in the FTT's approach to the Respondent's likely recourse to public funds. Although the FTT acknowledged that revocation of a deportation order does not itself grant leave to enter, the court held that because the Respondent's sole reason for seeking revocation was to enable entry and residence in the State, the public interest considerations in s117B (including financial independence) were relevant to the Article 8 public interest question.
• The FTT treated the Respondent's current financial support in Country A as a neutral factor but did not make findings about what would occur if the Respondent were to seek to enter and live in the State (i.e. whether she would be financially independent or require public funds). The court found this omission material and held that the FTT's approach to s117B(3) was in error because the issue required further factual examination.
• The court emphasised that the matter was in dispute and could not be resolved on the material before the Court of Appeal; it therefore concluded remittal to the FTT for further consideration of the financial independence issue was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Court concluded that the Appellant's challenge succeeded in part. In particular, the court found error in the FTT's treatment of the financial-independence issue under section 117B(3) of the 2002 Act. The court ordered that this aspect of the public interest assessment be remitted to the FTT for further consideration. The remainder of the FTT's factual findings and the UT's endorsement of those findings were not displaced by the court's analysis.

Outcome (core ruling emphasized): APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED AND REMITTED

Implications:

• Direct effect: The case will return to the FTT for a fresh determination limited to the Respondent's likely need to rely on public funds (financial independence) and the weight to be given to that matter in the Article 8 public interest balance. The FTT judge should make findings, as necessary, about the Respondent's position if permitted to enter and remain in the State.
• Scope of review: The court emphasised deference to specialist tribunals on factual findings; it did not overturn the FTT's core factual conclusions regarding family life, interdependency, or the severity of medical evidence supporting potential harm from separation.
• Precedential note: The decision does not purport to create new law beyond the application and clarification of existing principles (Razgar, NA (Pakistan), Yalcin, HA (Iraq) and related authorities). The court reiterated that where revocation of a deportation order is sought in order to enable entry and residence, the public interest considerations in section 117B are applicable to the Article 8 proportionality assessment.

The opinion concluded with the three judges being unanimous that the remittal was appropriate and with instruction for the FTT to address the identified issue of financial independence. No wider alteration to the FTT's findings on engagement of Article 8, the weight of the medical and welfare evidence, or the conclusion that very compelling circumstances existed on the evidence as assessed was ordered by the Court of Appeal.

---

Note on anonymisation: All personal names and direct identifiers in the original opinion have been replaced with generic labels (for example: "Respondent", "Respondent's Son", "Respondent's Daughter-in-Law", "Grandchild A", "Grandchild B", "Appellant", "FTT Judge", "Judge [Last Name]" etc.) in order to maintain consistency with the required anonymisation protocol used for this summary.