This case is one of a series of interesting cases handled by Gulbenkian Andonian immigration solicitors raising searching points of law with respect to human rights in the context of deportation of foreign criminals.
Our client was a citizen of Nigeria who arrived in the UK in 1990 at the age of 13 on a visitor’s visa which expired in 1991. He remained as an overstayer and was later granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR), in 2000. In 2010 he was sentenced to 5 years and eight months imprisonment for conspiring to supply heroin which triggered a notice of liability to automatic deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
In 2013, the Home Office ordered our client’s deportation. We contested that decision on the ground that his removal would contravene article 8 of the ECHR based on his family and private life. At that time, he had been in the UK for 23 years and had a British partner and two children who were British citizens. He also was undergoing treatment for sickle cell disease which we claimed would not be available in Nigeria.
We argued that if our client was deported his partner and children would suffer and their human rights outweighed the public interest of his removal.
Not surprisingly The Home Office refused the application and our client appealed the immigration decision section 82(i) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and we argued that his deportation would breach both article 3 of the EC HR and article 8. We also argued that although our client did not satisfy the test in N v SSHD as this was not a death bed case where he was about to die, nevertheless, if he was removed he would suffer a serious and rapid and irreversible decline in his health resulting in intense suffering leading to death following the decision in the European Court of Human rights in the matter of Paposhvili.
The Upper Tribunal agreed with us
The Upper Tribunal agreed with our arguments, and concluded that there would be a breach of article 3 of the ECHR that is to say his removal would lead to inhuman and or degrading treatment and the article 3 high threshold had been reached, and there was sufficient evidence that he would suffer serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his health resulting in intense suffering and thereafter death as per Paposhvili
Furthermore, the tribunal also agreed with us that the separation of the children from a deported parent, in this case, met the unduly harsh test, and there were certain extraordinary features in the relationship between our client and his children, all of whom also suffered from sickle-cell disease, and two of them were dyslexic and relied heavily upon their father for guidance in most walks of life and indeed in their studies, as confirmed by their school tutors.
Why choose Gulbenkian Andonian to represent you?
The above case represents one of a complicated nature but demonstrates, without a question, the legal abilities of our London based solicitors and lawyers. Our team of legal experts have decades of experience in dealing with the home office in court and can advise you as a client on the best way for you to win your case. We will take the time to prepare an in-depth argument for you and will do no less than provide you with our cutting edge knowledge and expertise on the UK legal system, UK law and any necessary case law that is needed to support you.
Ask our team of Top Immigration Lawyers London
For further information and clarification about ALL types of UK immigration and human rights law please do not hesitate to contact us on +44 (0) 20 7269 9590 or fill out the form below (we will reply to you within 24 hours on working days).
Our team of London based lawyers and solicitors can help you with your application process and provide you with answers to any questions you may have.
