Da Conceica Sa de Sousa v Secretary of State for the Home Department: deportation upheld over persistent theft offending

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed a Portuguese national's human rights challenge to deportation, finding that he produced no evidence of the family life, integration or health difficulties on which he relied.

In Manuel da Conceica Sa de Sousa v Secretary of State for the Home Department (HU/55593/2026), decided at Newport on 21 September 2026, Judge Boyes proceeded in the appellant's absence under rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. He was unrepresented and did not attend, but had contacted the tribunal five days earlier about documents. With no explanation offered, and the Home Office entitled to a timely decision, the hearing went ahead. J Longman appeared for the department.

The appellant said he arrived in the UK in 2004. He made an out-of-time application under the EU Settlement Scheme in September 2021 and was granted indefinite leave to remain in August 2022. His offending escalated in 2025 and 2026. In September 2025 he was convicted of nine counts of shoplifting and received a fine and a community order. In January 2026 he was sentenced to 20 weeks' imprisonment for 14 counts of theft and one of criminal damage, and ordered to pay £946 in compensation. Days later he was convicted of breaching the community order. A deportation decision followed, and his representations were treated as a human rights claim and refused.

Because the sentence was below four years, the appeal turned on the exceptions in section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and, failing those, on whether there were very compelling circumstances of the kind described in HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22. The appellant filed no witness statement, relying on his appeal form and character references, in which he claimed 24 years' residence, a dependent child, health problems and no ties to Portugal.

The judge found each limb unsupported. There was no evidence of the claimed child's identity, nationality or status, nor of meaningful involvement or contact, so no genuine and subsisting parental relationship was established. The claimed partner relationship failed for similar reasons: no evidence of cohabitation, interdependence or contact during imprisonment, and no statement from the partner.

On Exception 1, the judge was not satisfied that the appellant had been lawfully resident for most of his life. Nothing substantiated residence from 2004, and the settlement scheme had accepted residence only from 2013. Nothing showed integration through education, employment or community involvement, nor rehabilitation. As a Portuguese national who had spent his formative years there, with a sister in the country, he would not face very significant obstacles to integration. Portugal is less than three hours' flight from the UK.

On very compelling circumstances, the judge worked through the HA (Iraq) factors. Shoplifting was not a victimless crime, affecting society through higher prices and fear of further offending. In the judge's judgement, the offending harmed victims and showed continuing disregard for the law. Character references were positive but had to be weighed against that harm, and it was unclear whether their authors knew of his convictions. His health claims were not substantiated beyond evidence of treatment with medication available in Portugal, which has established healthcare and mental health services. The child's best interests, a primary consideration, could not alter the outcome without credible evidence of a genuine relationship.

The judge concluded that deportation was proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the appellant's presence was not conducive to the public good. The appeal was dismissed and no fee award was made.