A foreign national who is convicted of a crime in the UK does not simply serve a sentence and move on. If the sentence is sufficiently long, deportation follows more or less automatically, and the grounds for resisting it are far narrower than many people assume. A recent tribunal decision serves as a useful illustration of just how high that bar sits, and highlights the kinds of arguments that do not clear it.
Who counts as a "foreign criminal"?
In broad terms, a non-British citizen sentenced to at least 12 months in prison is treated by the law as a "foreign criminal", and the Home Secretary is required to make a deportation order against them. Deportation in these cases is the default rather than a discretionary power exercised on a case-by-case basis, as Parliament has decided that their removal is in the public interest and deportation is the default option.
That public interest naturally grows stronger the longer the sentence is: someone sentenced to four years or more faces the steepest challenge in avoiding deportation, although even at the lower end of the sentencing scale, deportation is the rule and staying is the exception.
What are the exceptions?
The law provides a small number of tightly defined exceptions, and these are built around interpretations of private and family life. In simple terms, a medium-level offender may be able to resist deportation in one of two situations. The first arises where they have been lawfully resident in the UK for most of their life, are genuinely integrated into British life, and stand to face "very significant obstacles" to re-integrating within the country they would be sent back to. The second is where they have a genuine, subsisting relationship with a partner and child who are settled in the UK, where deporting them would be "unduly harsh" on that family.
Beyond these exceptions, there is a final backstop: a person can still resist deportation if there are "very compelling circumstances" over and above the exceptions. This is an intentionally demanding test and tribunals apply it strictly. Ordinary hardship, the disruption of an established life, or the general difficulty of starting again abroad will rarely be enough to stay deportation on their own.
The appellant, an Algerian national, had lived in the UK since 2004. In 2008, he was convicted of possessing false travel documents and sentenced to 12 months, and a deportation order was made against him in 2009. He later sought to have that order revoked and also applied under the EU Settlement Scheme, or EUSS. Both were refused because of the conviction, and because the authorities found that his marriage was one of convenience rather than a genuine relationship.
On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his case. He did not meet the exceptions: the marriage of convenience finding meant there was no genuine family life to protect, and he could not show the very significant obstacles or very compelling circumstances the law requires. The public interest in his deportation prevailed.
The finding on the marriage matters. A relationship entered into to secure an immigration advantage carries no weight at all; worse still, a finding that a marriage is a sham damages the person's credibility across the whole case.
Implications:
The practical picture is a sobering one for anyone in this position. Once a qualifying sentence has been passed, deportation is the strong default, and the exceptions are narrow, specific, and hard to satisfy. A long period of residence alone is not a trump card, as it must be lawful residence coupled with genuine integration and real obstacles to life abroad. Family life only helps where it is genuine and where removal would be unduly harsh on a partner or child – a high threshold in and of itself. In summary of the main implications of this case:
- Non-British citizens sentenced to 12 months or more trigger automatic deportation, heavily prioritising public interest over individual stay.
- Long-term residence is insufficient unless coupled with lawful history, deep integration, and "very significant obstacles" to returning abroad.
- Separation from a settled UK partner or child only blocks deportation if the impact is proven to be "unduly harsh," not just disruptive.
- A finding of a marriage of convenience completely voids family-life protections and severely damages the applicant's overall legal credibility.
- Successful appeals rely strictly on painstakingly built objective evidence and early specialist immigration advice rather than emotional appeals.
The wider point is that these cases turn on evidence, not sympathy. Whether a relationship is genuine, whether integration is real, whether obstacles abroad are truly significant – each has to be proven, and a finding against the appellant on any of them can be decisive. Anyone facing deportation after a conviction should take specialist immigration advice early, be realistic about which exception, if any, is even arguable, and build the evidence painstakingly. The law leaves a door open, but only a narrow one.
Disclaimer: This simplified summary of a UK legal case is for general information only. It is not legal advice, may omit important detail, and may not reflect later developments or appeals. Please read the full judgement and seek professional legal advice before acting.