Nottingham Post, April 12, 2017
A Vietnamese cannabis farmer will be allowed to stay in the UK with his family after top judges blocked a Home Office bid to deport him.
Huu Dinh Nguyen was jailed for two years for his involvement in a Nottingham drugs factory and he was ordered to leave the country.
But judges sitting at the Court of Appeal, in London, have ruled the interests of his children “outweighed” the public interest in him being returned to Vietnam.
The court was upholding an earlier immigration tribunal decision to lift his deportation as it would breach his and his family’s human rights, which was challenged by the Home Office.
Nguyen was arrested at a cannabis farm in Lenton in 2008 and, after admitting his guilt, he was jailed for two years at the city’s crown court.
Lord Justice Underhill said Nguyen came to the UK illegally in 2005 when he was just 16 after his grandmother paid for him to be brought to the country.
The tribunal found he was “controlled” by people who fed and housed him in return for him doing whatever they told him, which the judge said seemed like a finding he was a victim of trafficking – although he did not claim he was.
At the behest of those people, he went to clean and look after the house being used as a cannabis factory.
He was arrested on his very first day working there and was not involved in growing any plants, the tribunal found.
By that time he had already met, unofficially married and had a son with his partner, who had a daughter from a previous marriage.
They were legally married in 2013 following his release from prison and his wife and son both had permission to remain in the UK, while his step-daughter is a British citizen.
The tribunal found their marriage is “genuine” and he is the main carer for both children, enabling his wife to earn a living by working at a nail bar.
It also concluded that deporting Nguyen would involve splitting up the family.
Lawyers representing the Home Office argued the tribunal was wrong to view the children’s interests as being the most important factor when reaching its decision.
But, dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Underhill, said it was “clear” the tribunal did not not treat their interests as a “trump card or paramount consideration”.
He added: “Rather, it put those considerations into the balance and found that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, what was in the children’s best interests outweighed the public interest in deportation.”
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Lindblom and Lady Justice Black, said he was “far from sure” the tribunal’s decision to lift the deportation order was overly “generous”.
He added: “I can see why the tribunal believed that the circumstances of his offending diminished, at least to some extent, the public interest in his deportation.
“More significantly, the family structure here was unusual.
“If the children had both been the children of him and his wife, there would have been a strong case that the whole family could, if that was the choice they made, have returned to Vietnam.
“But that would have meant his step-daughter being parted from her father, with whom she had a close and important familial relationship even though she did not live with him.”
Height Insoles: Hi, I do believe this is an excellent site. I stumbledupon …
http://fishinglovers.net: Appreciate you sharing, great post.Thanks Again. Keep writi…
Achilles Pain causes: Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this site, as i w…
April 13, 2017
Judge blocks bid to deport Vietnamese man caught growing cannabis in Lenton
by Nhan Quyen • [Human Rights]
Nottingham Post, April 12, 2017
A Vietnamese cannabis farmer will be allowed to stay in the UK with his family after top judges blocked a Home Office bid to deport him.
Huu Dinh Nguyen was jailed for two years for his involvement in a Nottingham drugs factory and he was ordered to leave the country.
But judges sitting at the Court of Appeal, in London, have ruled the interests of his children “outweighed” the public interest in him being returned to Vietnam.
The court was upholding an earlier immigration tribunal decision to lift his deportation as it would breach his and his family’s human rights, which was challenged by the Home Office.
Nguyen was arrested at a cannabis farm in Lenton in 2008 and, after admitting his guilt, he was jailed for two years at the city’s crown court.
Lord Justice Underhill said Nguyen came to the UK illegally in 2005 when he was just 16 after his grandmother paid for him to be brought to the country.
The tribunal found he was “controlled” by people who fed and housed him in return for him doing whatever they told him, which the judge said seemed like a finding he was a victim of trafficking – although he did not claim he was.
At the behest of those people, he went to clean and look after the house being used as a cannabis factory.
He was arrested on his very first day working there and was not involved in growing any plants, the tribunal found.
By that time he had already met, unofficially married and had a son with his partner, who had a daughter from a previous marriage.
They were legally married in 2013 following his release from prison and his wife and son both had permission to remain in the UK, while his step-daughter is a British citizen.
The tribunal found their marriage is “genuine” and he is the main carer for both children, enabling his wife to earn a living by working at a nail bar.
It also concluded that deporting Nguyen would involve splitting up the family.
Lawyers representing the Home Office argued the tribunal was wrong to view the children’s interests as being the most important factor when reaching its decision.
But, dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Underhill, said it was “clear” the tribunal did not not treat their interests as a “trump card or paramount consideration”.
He added: “Rather, it put those considerations into the balance and found that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, what was in the children’s best interests outweighed the public interest in deportation.”
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Lindblom and Lady Justice Black, said he was “far from sure” the tribunal’s decision to lift the deportation order was overly “generous”.
He added: “I can see why the tribunal believed that the circumstances of his offending diminished, at least to some extent, the public interest in his deportation.
“More significantly, the family structure here was unusual.
“If the children had both been the children of him and his wife, there would have been a strong case that the whole family could, if that was the choice they made, have returned to Vietnam.
“But that would have meant his step-daughter being parted from her father, with whom she had a close and important familial relationship even though she did not live with him.”