Ekene Anoliefo v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

An adult who entered with time-limited student leave and has never obtained indefinite leave to remain requires a substantially stronger private-life connection before deportation or removal can amount to an interference with private life requiring justification under Article 8.

An error of law is immaterial where it could not have affected the outcome. Permission to appeal should therefore not normally be granted where no alleged error could have made a difference, unless a point of public importance otherwise merits determination.

The appellant, a Nigerian national, appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal of his appeal from an automatic deportation decision made after his conviction for rape. His former student leave had expired, his former relationship had ended, and he relied principally on contact with a cousin in the United Kingdom.

The First-tier Tribunal found no family life and no private life sufficient to engage Article 8, but also held that deportation was proportionate in light of the serious offending. Permission was granted because the tribunal had not referred to the July 2012 rules or MF (Article 8 - new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 393 (IAC).

The central issue was whether those matters disclosed a material error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no material error of law.
2. The tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant had no family life in the United Kingdom. Its reference to no private life engaging Article 8 was properly understood as a finding that any private life lacked sufficient seriousness to require justification for interference.
3. For a person who arrived as an adult with limited student leave and was never granted indefinite leave to remain, a much more substantial private life is required before deportation or removal engages Article 8. The approach identified by Lord Bingham in Razgar supported that conclusion.
4. Any omission to consider the July 2012 rules and the two-stage process in MF (Article 8 - new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 393 (IAC) was immaterial. Those rules made the appellant’s Article 8 case more onerous, and private life developed in custody was of no consequence.
5. In any event, the public interest in deportation manifestly outweighed any private-life claim. The upheld rape conviction and its aggravating features meant that no properly self-directing judge could have allowed the appeal.
6. Where an alleged error of law has no reasonable prospect of affecting the outcome, permission to appeal should not normally be granted unless it is otherwise in the public interest to determine a point of public importance.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision: [2013] UKUT 345 (IAC).
• First-tier Tribunal: on 11 March 2013, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the deportation decision.