Essa, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2012] EWHC 1533 (QB) (01 June 2012)

Essa, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2012] EWHC 1533 (QB) (01 June 2012)

The First Tier Tribunal considered the risk to rehabilitation, family life, and proportionality as required by EU law and Article 8 ECHR. Its findings of fact and application of legal principles were not demonstrably wrong. The Upper Tribunal did not err in law by refusing permission to appeal.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1533 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Daha Essa; First Defendant: Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber); Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation of EU Citizens, Proportionality, Rehabilitation, Article 8 ECHR, EEA Regulations, Directive 2004/38/ec
Immigration European Union Law Human Rights Deportation of EU Citizens Proportionality Rehabilitation Article 8 ECHR EEA Regulations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daha Essa

Claimant

Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in law by refusing permission to appeal against deportation under EEA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the First Tier Tribunal failed to consider rehabilitation prospects in the host state as required by EU law
  3. 3 Whether the FTT gave adequate consideration to family life and proportionality under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The First Tier Tribunal considered the risk to rehabilitation, family life, and proportionality as required by EU law and Article 8 ECHR. Its findings of fact and application of legal principles were not demonstrably wrong. The Upper Tribunal did not err in law by refusing permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No error of law found in Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal