Immigration Deportation Order

Case Facts:

A deportation Order dated 27 May 2015 was issued against the Appellant as the he was convicted for robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment. The appellant had entered the UK in 2006 but there were no legal records of his entry. He had previously claimed asylum but was refused. He had also committed other crimes and convicted and was suffering from mental illness as he was a victim of torture.?

Following this, the appellant made an application to revoke the order. It was refused by a decision dated 16 March 2016. Appellant then appealed against this on the grounds that deportation violates the United Kingdom’s obligations under 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘Refugee Convention’) and that his rights under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal on 5 September 2016.

The appellant then proceeded with a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal decision as he was refused permission to appeal against the decision by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. The Administrative Court also refused to grant permission. Finally, permission to appeal against the refusal was granted to appellant by the Court of Appeal and he was granted permission to apply for judicial review.?

Outcome of the Matter:

The main grounds of appeal stated by the appellant were that return to OPA would mean he was at a risk of treatment and this would breach the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and his rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.?Secondly that his removal to either Morocco or OPA would breach his rights under Article 3 ECHR (on health grounds) and Article 8 ECHR.?

ICS legal on the Appellants behalf claimed that there is a fear to return to the OPA because of imputed political opinion. Appellant’s father was also shot by the Israeli defense force as he was a spy for the Palestinians. The Appellant had to leave Palestine at young age and travelled to Egypt. From Egypt he then travelled to Turkey. There he was pursued by the people to be responsible for killing his family. He then travelled to Malta before coming to the UK by lorry.

On the other hand, the Respondent’s submitted that he is not from OPA and is a national of Morocco. They claimed that he is not credible. The Respondent submitted that there was delay by the Appellant to make a claim on protection grounds and that he is excluded from protection of the Refugee Convention/grant of humanitarian protection because there are serious reasons for considering that he constitutes a danger to the community. While acknowledging that the health system in the OPA is not a on par with that in western countries, they submitted that there are organizations that the Appellant could approach there for help, support and assistance.

ICS legal with the help of Experts was able to prove that the client had a genuine case of mental illness and after getting proper medication, the client regretted the crimes he committed. It was evident that his deportation could lead to worsening his mental health condition and there was risk of self-harm and suicide. The ICS Legal with the help of supporting evidence also submitted that?the availability of public health facilities for individuals in Morocco is adequate to treat Appellant’s condition and that he is not in a position to afford the private facilities. ICS legal also highlighted that the Appellant’s return to OPA would breach the UK’s obligations under Article 3. ICS legal was also able to show to the Court evidence of Appellant’s private life in the UK through his knowledge of English and support of friend’s who attended the hearing.

In light of the facts, circumstances explained, and evidences the Appellant’s appeal was allowed. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant was not convicted of any serious crimes for him to be considered as a danger to the community. There was significant evidence that he suffered from mental illness due to the unfortunate circumstances that took place in his life.

The Court was convinced that there were substantial grounds for considering Appellant’s matter as an exceptional case because of a real risk of subjection to inhuman treatment resulting from the foreseeable consequences of his removal.?That the Appellant would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving state or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his state of health which would result in intense suffering and a significant, meaning substantial, reduction in life expectancy.?

It was held that, the removal of the Appellant to Morocco would breach the UK’s obligations under on Article 3 of the 1950 Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the deportation order was quashed and the Appellant was allowed to remain in the UK.