A Brazilian migrant, anonymized as 'DL', successfully appealed his deportation from the UK after claiming he cannot be returned to Brazil due to fears of the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) cartel. According to major media reports, DL argued his brief relationship with a woman whose ex-husband is said to have been a PCC member puts him at risk. The PCC is Brazil's largest organized crime group, known for its Class A drug trade and violent reputation.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Harbinder Athwal ruled there were errors in law in a previous ruling regarding the migrant's evidence about the ex-husband's PCC membership, though the specific evidence provided has not been disclosed. DL entered the UK in January 2023 with leave to enter as a visitor, made two applications to remain, was arrested as an overstayer in August 2024, and had his asylum claim refused. His current immigration status after winning the appeal remains unclear, as does how his mental health conditions might affect his case.
In a separate case, Joana Calcada, a Portuguese woman, can stay in the UK after a court found deportation would be harsh on her son, despite him not living with her. Multiple reports indicate Calcada arrived in the UK from Portugal in 2003 and applied for leave to remain in January 2023. She was jailed for two years and seven months on April 12, 2023, for two counts of supplying Class A drugs.
The judge did not make any findings in respect of whether Calcada was a relevant EU national in terms of length and nature of her residence, nor did he engage with the prospect of her criminality and periods of imprisonment interrupting that residence. The judge did not identify the level of protection to which she was entitled and made no reference to the fundamental interests of society before allowing the appeal under the Regulations. The judge did not mention the unduly harsh stay or go scenarios and did not engage with the fact that the Calcada's son was residing with the grandparents who had been looking after him. She relied upon a relationship with a fiancé but the judge made no findings as to whether the undue harsh test was met in this respect. The entirety of the judge's findings were legally unsound and insufficiently reasoned and are set aside with none preserved.
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that Calcada did not pose a 'genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to society' and that deportation would be 'disproportionate'. However, Upper Tribunal Judge Therese Kamara concluded that Calcada's criminal history had not been taken into account and that the initial judge's findings were legally unsound. According to Judge Kamara, the judge did not make any findings in respect of whether Calcada was a relevant EU national in terms of length and nature of her residence, nor did he engage with the prospect of her criminality and periods of imprisonment interrupting that residence.
She added that the judge did not identify the level of protection to which she was entitled and made no reference to the fundamental interests of society before allowing the appeal under the Regulations, and did not mention the unduly harsh stay or go scenarios and did not engage with the fact that Calcada's son was residing with the grandparents who had been looking after him. Calcada relied upon a relationship with a fiancé but the judge made no findings as to whether the undue harsh test was met in this respect, with Kamara stating the entirety of the judge's findings were legally unsound and insufficiently reasoned and are set aside with none preserved. Calcada's appeal will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be re-heard due to legal errors.
The outcome of this re-hearing is pending, and the Home Office's current position on the case after the Upper Tribunal ruling has not been specified.