Sajid Zulfiqar v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The definition of foreign criminal in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 differs from that in section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Section 32 requires the offender not to have been a British citizen at conviction because it creates an automatic-deportation regime. Part 5A instead governs the public-interest assessment in an Article 8 deportation appeal. It contains no equivalent temporal requirement. The relevant status is therefore that at the date of the challenged human-rights decision.

Former British citizenship and rehabilitation are case-sensitive factors in proportionality. They may carry substantial weight, but do not displace the strong public interest in deporting a person convicted of very serious crime unless very compelling circumstances exist.

Sajid Zulfiqar, born in the United Kingdom and formerly a British citizen, renounced that citizenship in 2011 while seeking transfer to a prison in Pakistan. He was serving a life sentence for murder. The Secretary of State refused his Article 8 claim and proposed deportation to Pakistan under the Immigration Act 1971.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 13 November 2019. It rejected his claim that official representations induced the renunciation, found no disproportionate interference with family or private life, and held that no very compelling circumstances arose. It mistakenly considered that he was not a foreign criminal for Part 5A purposes.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether that error was material and whether the First-tier Tribunal’s factual and proportionality conclusions disclosed legal error.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision contained no material error of law and was upheld.

2. The Tribunal held that section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 and Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 serve different functions. Section 32 creates automatic deportation for its defined class of foreign criminals. Its requirement that the person is not a British citizen is temporally linked to conviction. Part 5A regulates the Article 8 public-interest assessment. Its definition in section 117D(2) contains no requirement that the offender was not British at conviction.

3. At the date of the refusal decision, the appellant was not a British citizen, had been convicted in the United Kingdom, and had received a sentence exceeding 12 months. He was therefore a foreign criminal for sections 117A and 117C, and Part 13 of the Immigration Rules applied. The First-tier Tribunal erred in holding otherwise. The error was immaterial because its lesser assessment of the public interest favoured the appellant, yet he still could not show very compelling circumstances under section 117C(6) and paragraph 398.

4. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to reject the allegation that the appellant had been induced by the respondent or other United Kingdom authorities to renounce British citizenship. The evidence did not establish the alleged representations.

5. Former British citizenship from birth and lifelong residence were capable of carrying substantial weight, but their weight was fact-sensitive and not determinative. The First-tier Tribunal had considered those matters, rehabilitation, family life, integration, and the seriousness of murder. It was entitled to find deportation proportionate. A low risk of reoffending, if established, would not be the sole or most important facet of the public interest in a case involving very serious crime.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Appeal dismissed; the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 13 November 2019 was upheld.
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against refusal of his Article 8 human-rights claim and the proposed deportation to Pakistan.