United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00502/2015

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 th April, 2016	On 18 th July 2016

 

 

Before

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

 

Between

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant

and

 

Adrian Wladyslaw Horwat

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE )

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr E Tufan, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

For the Respondent: No Appearance

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

 

1. The appellant in this appeal is the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to avoid confusion I shall refer to her as being "the claimant". The respondent is a citizen of Poland born on 3 ^rd February, 1995.

 

2. On 17 ^th October, 2014 the respondent was convicted at Basildon Crown Court of two counts of supplying a controlled drug, namely class A crack cocaine, and one count of possession with intent to supply a controlled drug, namely class B cannabis resin. He was sentenced on 17 ^th November, 2014 to two years' imprisonment in a young offenders institution on each count to run concurrently.

 

3. The claimant made a decision to make a deportation order on 19 ^th October, 2015 and the respondent appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ievins on 17 ^th February, 2016 and the judge purported to allow the appeal on the basis that the respondent had been in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of at least ten years.

 

4. The claimant sought and obtained permission to appeal on the basis that the judge had failed to apply the decision of MG (prison-Article 28(3)(a) of Citizens Directive) Portugal [2014] UKUT 392. The period of ten years' residence must be continuous and must be counted backwards from the date of the deportation decision. In the respondent's case there is of course a period during which he was in prison and so the ten years has to be counted back from 17 ^th November, 2014.

 

5. The respondent entered the United Kingdom on either 3 ^rd or 4 ^th February, 2000. He entered with his family and his father claimed asylum, but the application was refused and an application to appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority was unsuccessful. Neither the respondent nor other family members have ever been granted leave, but on 1 ^st May, 2004 Poland joined the European Union.

 

6. It is possible therefore that the appellant may fall within the category of those who are entitled to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of their ten years' continuous period of residence, provided of course they meet the requirements on integration. Numerous findings are made between paragraphs 40 and 49 of the judge's determination, but nowhere does the judge apply his mind to the question of the appellant's integration or make findings sufficient to undertake an analysis. I have concluded, therefore that the matter will have to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in order that evidence can be heard on the question of the appellant's integration and a full assessment made.

 

7. The matter should be heard by any First-tier Tribunal Judge other than Judge Ievins. A Polish interpreter will be required and I believe that a time estimate of two hours is adequate. The matter should not be listed for hearing before 1 ^st June.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

18 ^th July 2016