Court of Appeal confirms correct statutory regime for the revocation of deportation orders

The Court of Appeal in Nguyen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1452 dismissed an appeal challenging the Upper Tribunal’s application of Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to an appeal against refusal to revoke a deportation order.

The appellant, a Vietnamese national deported in 2007 following a drugs conviction and a two-year sentence, sought revocation of the deportation order from abroad and entry clearance to re-join his wife and adult son in the UK. The First-tier Tribunal allowed his human rights appeal on Article 8 grounds, holding that section 117C was inapplicable because “deportation” had already occurred. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside and dismissed the appeal applying section 117C, finding neither Exception 2 (unduly harsh consequences for a qualifying partner) nor “very compelling circumstances” were met. 

The Court of Appeal (Laing, Nugee and Andrews LJJ) upheld the Upper Tribunal. It held that “deportation” in Part 5A encompasses the whole statutory regime, including post-removal maintenance of a deportation order and applications to revoke it from abroad. Accordingly, in human rights appeals “concerning the deportation of foreign criminals,” courts and tribunals must apply sections 117A–117C. While the Exceptions are framed prospectively, they do not restrict the scope of Part 5A; where a medium offender has already been removed, success will ordinarily depend on establishing “very compelling circumstances” over and above the Exceptions. The mere passage of time and compliance post-removal are insufficient. The Court also reaffirmed NA (Pakistan) [2016] EWCA Civ 662 and HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22, and emphasised that the statutory framework takes precedence over the Immigration Rules in judicial decision-making.

This judgment provides authoritative clarification that section 117C governs revocation appeals by foreign criminals made from abroad, promoting consistency and predictability in Article 8 proportionality assessments and underscoring the strong public interest in both deportation and continued exclusion absent very compelling circumstances.

Julia Smyth KC and Natasha Jackson, instructed by the Government Legal Department, represented the Secretary of State.