Our client, an EEA national, who had been residing in the UK since 2001, was convicted of criminal offences in the UK, and was sentenced to a total of six years in a young offender’s institute. Our Client was deported from the U.K and we acted for him. The Respondent notified the Applicant that she intended to make a deportation order against him on the ground of public policy and in accordance with regulation 19(3)9B) and regulation 21 of the EEA Regulations 2006. A couple of years later the Respondent made a decision to deport the Applicant under regulation 19(3) (b) of the EEA Regulations 2006. The Respondent did not accept that the Applicant had been in the UK for a continuous period of five years (or more).
The Respondent considered the Applicant to have a propensity to re-offend and maintained that he represented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the public such as to justify his deportation on grounds of public policy. The Respondent further maintained that, even if the Applicant did have permanent residence as a result of five or ten years continuous residence in the UK, the test of serious policy would be have been met.
We challenged the decision to deport our Client before the First-Tier Tribunal and successfully represented our Client. However, the Home Office applied to the First-Tier Tribunal for permission to appeal the First-Tier Tribunal’s determination, which was granted by the Frist-Tier Tribunal on various grounds. The matter was heard before the Upper Tribunal and we again successfully represented our Client in this hearing.
Consequently, the Upper Tribunal didn’t find any error of law and upheld the findings of the First-Tier Tribunal. Therefore, the deportation order was set aside, and our Client remained in the UK.