Majera (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0049

Parties

Appellant(s)

Sofian Majera

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for Home Department

Issue

The appellant contends that his deportation order should be revoked based on his Article 8 right to a private and family life. The issues in this appeal are: 1) Is public confidence in the deportation system a relevant factor when assessing the proportionality of deportation, when the individual is at low risk of re-offending? 2) Did the Upper Tribunal err in its approach to setting aside findings of fact made by the First-tier Tribunal?

Facts

The appellant, Mr Sofian Majera, is a national of Rwanda. He arrived in the UK aged 15 in 1997. In 2006, he pleaded guilty to a series of robberies for which he served nine years’ imprisonment under an indeterminate prison sentence (IPP) before his release on licence. He is therefore defined as a “foreign criminal” and liable to deportation. The respondent, (“the SSHD”) issued a deportation order in 2012, providing for the appellant’s deportation to Rwanda (“the Order”). His appeal against the Order was dismissed in the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and Upper Tribunal (“UT”) in 2014. In 2015, the appellant applied to the SSHD for revocation of the Order. On 19 October 2021, the SSHD notified the appellant of her refusal to revoke the Order (“the Decision”). The reason for the SSHD’s six-year delay is unexplained. The appellant appealed the Decision to the FTT. The FTT Judge allowed the appeal. The FTT Judge found that the appellant’s rehabilitation was exceptional, he was at low risk of re-offending, and therefore the public interest in his deportation was reduced. The SSHD appealed to the UT. The UT allowed the appeal, finding that the FTT had failed to consider the relevant authorities and failed to give adequate reasoning. The UT set aside the FTT decision and ordered that the appeal was heard again (de novo) by the UT at a fresh hearing. At the fresh hearing, the UT dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Decision. The UT found that, in carrying out the proportionality test, the factors in the appellant’s favour were deemed insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in deportation. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the UT was right to set aside the FTT decision and entitled to make the decision afresh. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

20 April 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top