/ Deportation & Detention / By

Very Compelling Circumstances in Deportation Appeals: Lessons from the Court of Appeal

The statutory test of “very compelling circumstances” in deportation appeals is now well established. And yet, appellate courts continue to set aside decisions where tribunals misapply, dilute, or misunderstand it.

This post examines how the Court of Appeal has framed the test under section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, why tribunals still fall into error, and what a legally sound approach actually requires.

It builds on recent authority, including the Court of Appeal’s emphasis on structured reasoning rather than outcome-driven assessment.

The Statutory Framework: Section 117C(6)

Section 117C creates a strong presumption in favour of deportation for foreign criminals. Where a person has been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment or more, an appeal can succeed only where there are “very compelling circumstances, over and above” the statutory exceptions.

This is not a balancing exercise in the ordinary sense. Parliament deliberately set the bar high. The seriousness of the offending carries very substantial weight, and the starting point is always that deportation is in the public interest.

The difficulty arises not from the wording of the statute, but from how it is applied in practice.

The Court of Appeal Framework

The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that the “very compelling circumstances” test does not introduce a free-standing requirement of exceptionality. However, it does demand a holistic and disciplined assessment of all relevant factors, viewed cumulatively and in the context of the strong public interest in deportation.

Two decisions remain central to this framework:

Together, they confirm that:

  • all relevant factors must be considered together,
  • no single factor is determinative, and
  • the seriousness of the offending must be confronted directly.

What they do not permit is a decision that simply identifies sympathetic features and treats them as self-evidently decisive.

Why Tribunals Still Fall into Error

Despite clear appellate guidance, tribunals continue to make the same structural mistakes.

Common errors include:

  • treating individual factors in isolation rather than cumulatively,
  • allowing one strong feature (such as family life or rehabilitation) to do all the work, and
  • failing to explain why the high statutory threshold is met.

In many cases, the problem is not the conclusion reached, but the absence of reasoning capable of justifying it.

Where the statutory test is not explicitly applied, or where the public interest is treated as a background consideration rather than the starting point, decisions are vulnerable on appeal.

Rehabilitation and the “Very Compelling” Test

Rehabilitation frequently features in deportation appeals, but it is often misunderstood.

As the Court of Appeal has made clear, rehabilitation is:

  • relevant,
  • not determinative, and
  • incapable of satisfying the test on its own.

Evidence of reform and non-reoffending may reduce the weight of the public interest in deportation, particularly where it speaks to future risk. However, it must be embedded within a broader assessment that also addresses:

  • the seriousness of the original offending,
  • the length and nature of any sentence imposed, and
  • the wider objectives of deportation policy.

Rehabilitation is not a substitute for the statutory test. It is one component of it.

The Importance of Structured Reasoning

What emerges from the case law is a consistent judicial message:
good outcomes require good reasoning.

Tribunals are expected to:

  • identify the correct statutory test,
  • explain how each relevant factor weighs for or against deportation, and
  • articulate why the cumulative effect of those factors is sufficient to outweigh the strong public interest.

Where this analysis is missing or compressed, appellate intervention is likely, regardless of how compelling the facts may appear.

Practical Implications for Deportation Appeals

For practitioners, the implications are clear.

Successful appeals under section 117C(6) tend to:

  • confront the seriousness of the offending head-on,
  • avoid over-reliance on any single factor, and
  • demonstrate, with evidence and reasoning, why the statutory threshold is met.

Submissions that focus on sympathy rather than structure are unlikely to survive appellate scrutiny.

Conclusion

The “very compelling circumstances” test is demanding by design. The Court of Appeal has not softened it, but it has clarified how it must be applied.

Tribunals are not required to reach harsh outcomes. They are required to reason their way to lawful ones.

For those advancing or resisting deportation appeals, the lesson is straightforward: the quality of analysis matters as much as the facts themselves.