‘Life in Germany is not significantly different from life in the UK’: EU nationals and the ‘insurmountable obstacles’ test

The Court of Appeal has considered in Ackom v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 537 an appeal by a German national against deportation. The key point of contention was whether Mr Ackom would face ‘very significant obstacles to integration’ upon removal to Germany.

The court considered the Kamara test in the context of deportation to European country where life was ‘not significantly different’ from life in the UK.

Background 

Mr Ackom arrived in the UK from Germany when he was seven, about 20 years ago. He did well at school, obtaining GCSEs and A-levels, and later played professional football at Cambridge and Northampton.

Mr Ackom appears to have been a person of good character until his offending behaviour, which occurred in 2021/2022, and where he was ultimately convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to supply and sentenced to 49 months.

(For the purposes of deportation law (see s117D(4)(b)), because Mr Ackom’s 49 months comprised consecutive sentences – 45 months for the intent to supply, and 4 month for being in possession of a bladed article – only his longest individual sentence is considered (45 months, so less than 4 years), meaning that he could avail himself of the exceptions to deportation (see below)).

The ‘integration’ exception 

Where a person subject to deportation proceedings has been sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, and has been resident in the UK for a significant period of time, they can argue that they fall within an exception to deportation under s117C(4):

(4) Exception 1 applies where—

(a) C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C’s life,

(b) C is socially and culturally integrated in the United Kingdom, and

(c) there would be very significant obstacles to C’s integration into the country to which C is proposed to be deported.

As Mr Ackom was accepted to have been lawfully resident in the UK for most of his life, and to have been socially and culturally integrated in the UK, his appeal – whether he would be deported or not – turned on the question of whether he would face ‘very significant obstacles to integration’ upon removal to Germany.

The leading case on this question remains Kamara v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 813, as approved by the Supreme Court in Sanambar v SSHD [2021] UKSC 30:

…the concept of a foreign criminal’s “integration” into the country to which it is proposed that he be deported … is a broad one. It is not confined to the mere ability to find a job or to sustain life while living in the other country. … . The idea of “integration” calls for a broad evaluative judgment to be made as to whether the individual will be enough of an insider in terms of understanding how life in the society in that other country is carried on, and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual’s private or family life 

Whether someone can become ‘enough of an insider’ in the Kamara sense is not to be determined (solely) by reference to their ties or links to the country of destination: generic factors (such as good health, the ability to work, intelligence, academic abilities, ability to adapt to the local culture, and robustness of character) could be of significance and form part of the broad evaluative judgment of whether or not someone would encounter very significant obstacles to integration: AS (Iran) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1284 (para 58).

And all of the authorities make clear this is a hard test to meet, and that inconvenience or upheaval, or even just significant obstacles, will not be enough: Parveen v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 932 (25 April 2018) (para 16).

No connections? Not enough 

In allowing Mr Ackom’s appeal, the initial tribunal hearing the case identified four main obstacles to his integration in Germany:

• he had no family in Germany and no family connections with Germany, and had not been there since 2005
• as a person of Ghanaian heritage, he did not continue the culture of Germany in the family home whilst in the UK, and which was therefore entirely foreign
• he does not speak, read or write German
• his criminal conviction was likely to make it more difficult to obtain employment

Although the Upper Tribunal acknowledged that this might be considered by some to be a generous application of the facts to the relevant law, it did not find any error of law, and therefore upheld the decision.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, re-emphasising the point it made in AS (Iran) that ‘it is possible for migrants with no ties to the country of destination, and no contacts there, and who cannot speak the language on arrival, to integrate and develop a private life there within a reasonable time’ (para 46).

It found that whilst the factors the judge identified might suffice in an appropriate case to demonstrate ‘very significant obstacles’ to integration, they are not inevitably determinative, with much depending on the country and on the nature and character of the individual concerned (paras 45-46), and that the judge failed to demonstrate that she had (para 49):

… addressed whether the obstacles she identified would prevent or seriously inhibit [Mr Ackom] from integrating into Germany (as opposed to making integration difficult or challenging). …[or] turned her mind to the question whether the [Mr Ackom] had the capacity to participate in German society, or to operate on a day to day basis, or asked herself whether he would have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, or whether he would be inhibited from building relationships in that country

The Court of Appeal concluded that this was particularly the case (para 50):

… given that the proposed country of return is Germany, and life in Germany is not significantly different from life in the UK

While I am not sure this sweeping statement is remotely helpful in the context of making this assessment, the judgment is a reminder of the level of detailed evidence needed to succeed in an appeal against deportation.  

The appeal was remitted back to the First Tier Tribunal for re-hearing on this point.