CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 29 March 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18339/19 Junior OTITE against the United Kingdom lodged on 1 April 2019 communicated on 12 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant challenges a deportation order issued after he was sentenced to four years and eight months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to make or supply articles for use in fraud. Although the First Tier Tribunal allowed his appeal against the deportation order, the Upper Tribunal set that decision aside and, applying section   117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended) and paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended) (see Unuane v. the United Kingdom , no . 80343/17, 24 November 2020) substituted a determination dismissing the appeal on the basis that the evidence did not establish the existence of “very compelling” circumstances” capable of outweighing the public interest in deportation (see Unuane , cited above).     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, for example, Boultif v.   Switzerland , no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001 ‑ IX and Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII), would the applicant’s deportation to Nigeria constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for his family life enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention?