Landmark Court of Appeal Ruling on Deportation of an EU Citizen

Landmark Court of Appeal Ruling on Deportation of an EU Citizen: Analysis of Ackom v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 537

On 30 April 2025, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales delivered a significant judgment in Ackom v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 537, which redefines the interpretation of “very significant obstacles to integration” in the context of deportation of European Union nationals post-Brexit. The judgment is of considerable importance to the practice of immigration law in the United Kingdom.

Background of the Case

Gibson Bennett Ackom, a German national of Ghanaian origin, was born in Düsseldorf in 1998. In 2005, at the age of seven, he moved to the United Kingdom with his father and has lived there continuously since, never returning to Germany. Despite over a decade of residence in the UK, he did not apply for permanent residence either prior to Brexit or under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).

In April 2022, Ackom was sentenced to a total of 49 months’ imprisonment for two offences of possession with intent to supply cocaine. In August 2022, while serving his sentence, he was served with a notice of intention to deport. His human rights claim was refused in November 2022, prompting him to appeal the decision.

Tribunal Proceedings

At first instance, the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) allowed Ackom’s appeal, concluding that he met all three limbs of Exception 1 under section 117C(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld the decision, although it noted that the findings of the FtT had been “generous”.

The central issue on appeal before the Court of Appeal was whether there were “very significant obstacles” to Ackom’s integration in Germany under section 117C(4)(c). The Home Office did not challenge the other two limbs of Exception 1.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Lady Justice Andrews held that the FtT judge either failed to provide adequate reasons for finding that the threshold was met or, in substance, misapplied the legal test. She noted that the FtT had not explained why a young, healthy man with a good level of education and work experience, who was willing to acquire new skills, would face insurmountable barriers to integration in Germany, despite lacking family or social ties and not speaking the language.

The Court of Appeal found that the tribunal had not properly assessed whether these obstacles would, in fact, prevent or seriously hinder integration—especially given that “the proposed country of return is Germany, and life in Germany is not significantly different from life in the UK”.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.

Significance of the Judgment

This decision has major implications for immigration law practice in the United Kingdom, particularly in the deportation of EU nationals following Brexit. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the need for a rigorous and detailed analysis of integration obstacles, taking into account the specific circumstances of each individual. It clarified that the presence of difficulties such as lack of language or social ties may not automatically meet the high threshold required by statute.

The ruling emphasises that tribunals must provide clear and legally sound reasoning when accepting or rejecting claims based on the integration exception. It is likely to influence future deportation proceedings, setting a precedent for more critical scrutiny of claims involving the right to remain under Article 8 ECHR and section 117C.

Conclusion

The case of Ackom v Secretary of State for the Home Department serves as a critical precedent in interpreting the statutory test for deportation exemptions of EU citizens. It underscores the importance of precise and well-reasoned analysis by tribunals and may reshape the approach of UK immigration courts to such cases in the post-Brexit legal landscape.

The judgment demonstrates the balancing act between the public interest in deporting foreign criminals and the rights of long-term residents to remain in the UK where serious obstacles to reintegration abroad can be demonstrated. As such, it is an essential reference point for immigration practitioners, judges, and policymakers.