The conflict of deportation of a migrant and Article 8 Right to a Private and Family Life is historic in nature, yet evidently this did not deter the introduction of Section 94B of Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. A policy was introduced to deny a migrant the right to reside in the UK whilst appealing the decision following the conviction of a serious criminal offence, hence the introduction of Section 94B.


Section 94B relates to migrants detained for a crime in the UK. If detained for a serious criminal offence, the right to remain in the UK could be removed. The migrant may lodge an appeal, however Section 94B awarded the Secretary of State the power to deport a migrant before an appeal is heard if certain criteria is met. One may be pondering what is the issue? A rejection to stay in the UK surely should be followed and enacted, and with an appeal still available (albeit outside the UK) what really is the problem? The Judgment in the Supreme Court of the case of R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department offers an answer and addresses issues that arise when Article 8 is engaged.


All public authorities must act in a way that is compatible with Convention Rights (Section 6 HRA 98). It was found in this recent judgement that the implementation of ‘deport first appeal later’ did engage Article 8. Mr Kiarie has Kenyan nationality, he moved to the UK in 1997 with his parents and siblings at aged three years old. Mr Kiarie was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2004, and at the time of the hearing was aged 23 years old. Mr Byndloss has Jamaican nationality, he moved to the UK when he was 21 years of age and at the time of the appeal was aged 36 years old. He has a wife and several children in the UK. Mr Byndloss was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2006. Both appellants were convicted of a serious drugs charge.

Mr Kiarie and Mr Byndloss were issued with Section 94B Certificates for deportation. The Supreme Court were requested to review the decision of the Court of Appeal, that although Article 8 was engaged the decision to deport was proportionate. The factor that lead to the deportation was justified as, if the migrant remained it was conducive for the public good. The Conservative Government stated that the Certificate would only be issued on the basis that there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm upon deportation.


The Supreme Court ruled the Certificate for deportation was unlawful and not in accordance with Article 8 as the Secretary of State had acted disproportionality. Lord Wilson stated although the Secretary of State stated a Certificate will only be granted “Where there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm, we should deport foreign criminals first and hear their appeals later.” Nevertheless, Lord Wilson interprets this statement as not only the risk of harm to the country of which the applicant is to be deported, but the harm that could be caused to likelihood of success at appeal. The inability to provide oral evidence in person, appoint and subsequently liaise accordingly with legal representatives prior to the hearting could adversely affect the outcome. This was the primary focus for the Supreme Court, placing emphasis on the fairness of an out of country appeal that engages Article 8.

The fairness of an appeal was stated in paragraph 56, Lord Wilson specified the role of the Home Office is to both decide the deportation of the migrant and be a party in appeal proceedings, perhaps Lord Wilson was suggesting an imbalance of power.

Furthermore, the removal of the migrant could affect the grounds of which he bases his appeal. If the appeal raises matters relating to strong family, social and community ties, the migrant is not currently demonstrating those ties whilst in another country.


The full implications of the Supreme Court ruling are yet to be seen. The government has yet to act upon the now deemed unlawful ‘deport first appeal later’ policy. It is unclear as to the possibility of such certificates being issued in the near future, or an amendment of legislation. Nevertheless, the need for action by the government is evident.

QC Immigration has vast experience dealing with complicated Human Rights cases, especially where families and children’s welfare are involved. Contact us to find a way out of your immigration issues today.



Need more information?

Learn more about how we work and support you through the UK Immigration Application Process.

Get In Touch


What do our users say

Thank you very much for your contribution and good job you have done for me and my family. Today, I feel that thanking you is not enough. You will remain in our hearts and we will always have this deepest and sincere regard for you, as you have always shown your kindness and your work have been appreciated by the whole family.

Long Residence Settlement (10 years) client – Mauritian

Qiyin is an extremely diligent and thorough immigration lawyer. She took the time to fully understand my case and application for the highly skilled migrant program. She was very careful to consider both the short and longer term issues related to my application and provided very balanced and frank advice. My highly skilled migrant visa was successfully renewed thanks to her advice and help. I highly recommend her.

Tier 1 (General) visa client – Singaporean

I would like to thank you for all the hard work you’ve done for us in the past few years! I am now finished with the whole process and had my UK Citizenship ceremony. We couldn’t have gotten this far without you!

Entry Clearance Settlement (Spouse) visa client – Canadian

Thank you for all your help. I got the visa this morning and look forward to going on holiday. See you again in 30 months for the next visa.

PEO same-day service (Spouse leave to remain) client – Thai

We are so glad that our friend recommended you to help with our ILR application and we have no doubt it may have been a different story if we were applying without your support! We appreciate your professional approach and knowledge on immigration matters and wish your business well in the future (we are sure you will be very successful). Have no doubt we will be using your services for our application for Citizenship.

Indefinite Leave to Remain (Spouse) client – Russian

The QC Immigration team has proved an absolute star on the immigration front and my son’s fiancée is now happily settled, thank you again.

Partner (Fiancée) Settlement Visa – Brazilian

Many thanks for all your work on our application, especially since I contacted you on short notice! I contacted you on Sept 22nd and we signed up with you on/around Sept 27th! So we pulled this all together a little over 3 weeks.

Premium Service (Fiancée) Partner visa client – American

You have exceeded our expectations by saving us so much time and money when organising this! Thank you for also co-operating with our investment manager and accountant to ensure everything ran smoothly.

Tier 1 Investor (Super Premium Service) client – Chinese

Naturalisation (British Citizenship) client - Dutch

EEA Permanent Residence client – Belgian

My family and I were very emotional receiving the good news today. Thank you for all your help and we will definitely recommend you to our European friends who are planning ahead after Brexit!

Naturalisation (British Citizenship) client – Dutch

My family and I were very emotional receiving the good news today. Thank you for all your help and we will definitely recommend you to our European friends who are planning ahead after Brexit!

Naturalisation (British Citizenship) client – Dutch