VHR v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an appeal alleging error of law, a party must address the legal threshold governing the underlying decision. A tribunal is not required to record and analyse every item of evidence. It must make reasoned findings on the key issues and give a clear decision.

For automatic deportation, the appellant must show that an exception under section 33 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 applies. A forensic challenge to isolated passages in a determination will not establish an error of law where the determination, read fairly as a whole, makes clear and cogent findings on the material issues and conducts the required proportionality assessment.

The appellant, a Jamaican citizen, appealed against the First-tier Tribunal's dismissal of his challenge to an automatic deportation order. The order followed his conviction for wounding with intent and a sentence of four years' imprisonment.

He relied principally on his relationships with his partner, an Irish national, and his children, especially his disabled son. The First-tier Tribunal found that the relationship with the partner was not durable, that the appellant had not shown the necessary commitment to his children, and that deportation was proportionate.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had failed to address material evidence, made unsupported findings about the family relationship, or given inadequate reasons so as to disclose a material error of law.

1. The appeal was refused. There was no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's determination, which was to stand.

2. The appellant's challenge wrongly concentrated on isolated forensic criticisms of the First-tier Tribunal's language and treatment of evidence. A tribunal need not record, rehearse or repeat every detail of the evidence. Its task is to make reasoned findings on the key issues and reach a clear decision.

3. The governing issue was whether an exception under section 33 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 displaced automatic deportation under section 32. The appellant had not properly engaged with that threshold. His criticisms did not show that the First-tier Tribunal had applied the wrong test or failed to make the required assessment.

4. Read as a whole, the First-tier Tribunal had recorded the relevant family evidence and had made a central, general finding about the lack of durability and commitment in the appellant's relationship with his partner and child. It was entitled to treat that finding as bearing on the claimed bond with the child. The weight of the evidence was for the First-tier Tribunal.

5. The First-tier Tribunal had also carried out the proportionality exercise. It was entitled to give substantial weight to the serious knife offence, the sentence imposed, the appellant's limited relevant private life, and the absence of evidence that loss of care would have insurmountable adverse consequences for the children. Deportation's disruptive effect on family relationships was, on these findings, a necessary consequence of the appellant's conduct.

6. The Upper Tribunal made an anonymity order under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to protect the identity of the child C.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The appeal was refused. The Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had made no material error of law and directed that its determination stand.

• First-tier Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal Judge Trevaskis, sitting with Dr J O de Barros, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the automatic deportation order in a determination promulgated on 7 April 2014.