Illegal migrant allowed to stay because he criticised his government on social media

Telegraph

4 hours ago

A Zimbabwean asylum seeker has been allowed to stay in Britain after criticising his country's government on social media.
The unnamed man, who was caught working illegally 17 years ago, initially had his claim refused because a judge ruled his political activity was merely a 'device' to strengthen his application.
However, at a new hearing, a judge suggested that, even though there were doubts about the veracity of his claim, the Zimbabwean's new official role as vice-treasurer within the UK branch of the opposition meant he had an elevated status above the 'rank and file.'
As a result, they said, he would now be at risk from the authorities if he were sent back. His case will now be reheard by a new immigration tribunal, after the Home Office said his membership of the opposition was 'self-serving' and becoming vice-treasurer was just another attempt to bolster his claim.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph where illegal migrants, or convicted foreign criminals, have been able to remain in the UK or halt their removal from the UK.
Ministers are proposing to raise the threshold to make it harder for judges to grant the right to remain based on Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family life, and Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Zimbabwean first came to the UK in 2005 when he was in his mid-20s, but was later found working illegally using false papers, at which point he claimed asylum. It was refused and he appealed, only for that appeal to be rejected.
A tribunal ruled that he was at the 'very lowest level' of the party which would not attract interest from the African country's intelligence services. It also concluded that his membership was merely a 'device' to bolster a future asylum claim.
Despite losing his appeal in 2008, he remained in the country, lodging further challenges until August 2022 when he joined the Citizens Coalition for Change, a successor to the Movement for Democratic Change, and became the vice-treasurer of his local branch.
He was also listed online as a speaker at a protest, featured on the branch Facebook page, and made social media posts critical of the Zimbabwean government.
His claim for asylum was backed by a first tier tribunal which ruled that his 'perceived political opinion' would put him at risk of ill-treatment.
The Home Office appealed, arguing that his decision to join the Citizens Coalition for Change was 'self-serving' and becoming vice-treasurer was just another attempt to bolster his claim.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge David Merrigan concluded that if the Zimbabwean was not 'genuinely politically motivated', as the lower chamber ruled, then he could delete his social media and request that the branch do the same.
Additionally, his 'recent and modest' political contributions did not justify overruling the 2008 decision that he was 'no more than a rank and file' member.
Judge Merrigan found that these were errors of law which required sending the case back to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided again.
He said: 'The question then becomes why, if the [Zimbabwean] is not genuinely politically motivated, he would not simply delete his social media accounts and request that the Citizens Coalition for Change delete him from their accounts and website. The [First-tier Tribunal] did not address this question...
'The [First-tier Tribunal] has not provided justification as to why the appellant's status as a branch vice treasurer, and the limited role it has given him in branch business, should in itself justify departing from [the 2008] decision that the appellant is no more than a rank and file member.
'It is unclear to me, given the apparently recent and modest contribution the appellant has made to his Citizens Coalition for Change branch, what that justification could have been. Plainly this constitutes an error of law.'