Sanambar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 30

An Iranian national who entered the UK lawfully as a child at age nine committed serious knifepoint robberies as a juvenile. The Supreme Court upheld his deportation, confirming that the 'very serious reasons' test from Maslov is not a separate threshold but a summary of how conventional balancing criteria apply to settled migrants who arrived as children.

Facts

The appellant, an Iranian national born in 1995, arrived in the United Kingdom in February 2005 at age nine with his mother under the family reunion policy. He was granted indefinite leave to remain. He had no family ties with Iran but spoke Farsi with his mother. He had an established private and family life in the UK with a particularly strong bond with his mother, with whom he had lived all his life. He experienced a difficult upbringing due to his father’s violent conduct.

Between 2009 and 2013, the appellant committed multiple criminal offences. In December 2009, aged 14, he was convicted of three counts of attempted robbery. In November 2011, he was convicted of possession of an offensive weapon. In March 2013, aged 17, he was convicted of six counts of robbery, three counts of attempted robbery, and one count of handling stolen property. He was sentenced to three years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution. The robberies were committed at knifepoint against victims aged 15-18, with one victim threatened with having his throat slit.

Issues

Primary Issues

1. The correct approach to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in deportation cases involving criminal offending by those who entered and lawfully settled in the UK as children.

2. The approach to the test of ‘very significant obstacles to integration’ in the receiving state in such cases.

Appellant’s Argument

The appellant argued that paragraph 75 of Maslov v Austria established a ‘condition subsequent’ requiring ‘very serious reasons’ to justify expulsion of a settled migrant who had lawfully spent all or the major part of childhood and youth in the host country, particularly where offences were committed as a juvenile.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.

Interpretation of Maslov

Sir Declan Morgan, delivering the judgment with which all other Justices agreed, rejected the appellant’s interpretation of Maslov. He noted that paragraph 75 of Maslov was a summary, not a separate legal test:

In short, the court considers that for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in the host country, very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion. This is all the more so where the person concerned committed the offences underlying the expulsion measure as a juvenile.

The Court held that the words ‘In short’ indicated this was a summary of preceding jurisprudence, not an additional threshold. The correct approach was to conduct a conventional balancing exercise using the four Üner/Maslov criteria: (i) nature and seriousness of the offence; (ii) length of stay in the host country; (iii) time elapsed since the offence and conduct during that period; and (iv) solidity of social, cultural and family ties with both countries.

Integration Test

On the ‘very significant obstacles to integration’ test, the Court endorsed the approach in Kamara v Home Office:

The idea of ‘integration’ calls for a broad evaluative judgment to be made as to whether the individual will be enough of an insider in terms of understanding how life in the society in that other country is carried on and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual’s private or family life.

Application to Facts

The Upper Tribunal had properly considered all relevant factors including: the seriousness of the knifepoint robberies; the appellant’s continuing medium risk of serious harm linked to lifestyle, peer group and drug use; his ability to speak Farsi; his intelligence and adaptability; and his mother’s connections in Iran. The tribunal’s conclusion that obstacles to integration were not ‘very significant’ was justified.

Implications

This judgment clarifies that the ECtHR’s Maslov decision does not create a separate ‘very serious reasons’ threshold for deportation of settled migrants who arrived as children. Instead, the age of arrival and juvenile offending are factors to be weighed in the conventional Article 8 balancing exercise alongside other criteria. The decision confirms that very serious violent offences can justify expulsion even when committed by a minor, and that the integration test requires a broad evaluative judgment encompassing the individual’s capacity to participate in the destination country’s society.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the deportation order, finding that the Upper Tribunal had properly applied the conventional Article 8 balancing exercise and that the interference with the appellant’s private and family life was outweighed by the public interest in the prevention of crime.

Source: Sanambar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 30