Majera v Secretary of State: Court of Appeal clarifies rehabilitation's role in deportation appeals

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging a deportation order for a foreign criminal, providing important clarification on the "very compelling circumstances test" and the weight to be given to rehabilitation evidence in deportation cases.

Sofian Majera, a Rwandan national granted indefinite leave to remain in 2005, was convicted in 2006 of ten serious street robberies involving a gang, weapons, and gratuitous violence against lone victims. He received an imprisonment for public protection sentence with a seven-year minimum term, based on a notional determinate sentence of 18 years. A deportation order followed.

After serving nine years and being released in 2015, Majera applied for revocation of the deportation order, relying heavily on evidence of rehabilitation. The First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal in 2022, finding that rehabilitation and the passage of time created very compelling circumstances outweighing the public interest. The Upper Tribunal set aside this decision for errors of law and, following a fresh hearing, dismissed the appeal.

The very compelling circumstances test

Lord Justice Warby, delivering the leading judgement with which Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Bean agreed, affirmed that section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 establishes an appropriately high threshold for serious offenders sentenced to at least four years' imprisonment. Such cases require "very compelling circumstances, over and above" those in the statutory exceptions, creating what Lord Hamblen described in HA (Iraq) as a "safety valve" for exceptional cases.

The Court found the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred by failing to explain why rehabilitation constituted "very compelling circumstances" in this context. Whilst rehabilitation can reduce the public interest in deportation by diminishing the need for public protection, the Supreme Court in HA (Iraq) confirmed it will "rarely be of great weight" given the wider policy considerations of deterrence and public concern.

Critical deficiencies in reasoning

The Court identified several shortcomings in the First-tier Tribunal's approach. The tribunal had not adequately assessed the gravity of the offending, failed to anchor its conclusion about the reduced weight of the public interest, and provided no clear explanation for treating rehabilitation as a factor that could "just tip the balance" in the appellant's favour.

Crucially, the tribunal's reasoning lacked any reference to the statutory requirement that very compelling circumstances must go "above and beyond" the exceptions. As Lord Justice Warby observed, such circumstances must not only provide a very strong basis for concluding deportation would be disproportionate, but must be compelling to a degree going "well beyond" anything falling within the statutory exceptions.

Remaking decisions and two-tier appeals

The Court rejected arguments that the Upper Tribunal should have remitted the case to the First-tier Tribunal. Practice Statements establish that retention for remaking is the normal approach unless specific exceptions apply, particularly where procedural unfairness occurred. The appellant had received a fair hearing initially and could adduce further evidence before the Upper Tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal's fresh decision properly applied the legal framework, considering all relevant circumstances including the serious nature of the offending, evidence of rehabilitation and low risk of reoffending, the Secretary of State's delay, and the appellant's circumstances. Its conclusion that the public interest in deportation had not been sufficiently weakened to be outweighed disclosed no error of law.

This judgement reinforces that rehabilitation evidence, whilst relevant, faces significant hurdles in serious offender cases and must be considered within the structured framework Parliament has established.

Copyright & permissions