Latest news with #ImmigrationTribunal
RNZ News
06-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Traumatised German woman who found 'real love and care' in NZ allowed to stay
By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of Photo: Mongkol Chuewong A German woman with post-traumatic stress disorder found "real love and care" for the first time in New Zealand. Now she will be allowed to stay here, at least for now, after a tribunal blocked her possible deportation following the expiry of her visa. The 33-year-old woman left Germany 10 years ago, arrived in New Zealand in 2020, and has been here unlawfully without a visa since September last year. Although she has qualifications in hospitality management and has been studying towards becoming a community support worker, her application to renew a work visa was turned down in August 2024. She has been liable for deportation since her visa ran out. In that time, she started a relationship with a New Zealand citizen. The Immigration and Protection Tribunal said that although they had been a couple for only five months, they had been friends for longer and were in a "genuine relationship". "If the appellant cannot remain in New Zealand, this will likely result in the couple being separated," according to a recent tribunal decision. "The tribunal accepts that the appellant's deportation will cause significant difficulty and distress for her, as she will be deprived of her partner, who is currently her key support figure." The woman's name was redacted from the published version of the tribunal decision. The tribunal said it had received 20 letters of support in the woman's favour. The decision said that the woman suffered from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) arising from things that happened to her in Germany. "The only connection she associates with her home country, Germany, is the past trauma she experienced there," it said. Although her immediate family remained in Germany, she had no functional family relationships there and no meaningful connections. "The appellant states that she is anxious and distressed at the possibility of returning to Germany. "She writes that without a family that cares, or friends, she would not survive there as she has no reason to live there. "She also fears reliving painful memories of her past," the tribunal said. "The appellant writes that before arriving in New Zealand, she had never known 'real love and care'." It said that apart from her CPTSD, for which she is still receiving counselling, the woman had an acceptable standard of health and a clean record. It found there were "exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature" making it unjust or unduly harsh for the woman to be deported. The tribunal ordered that the woman be given a work visa for 12 months, which would allow her time to continue her therapy and work towards a partnership-based application for residence. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
Telegraph
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Asylum seeker suspected of recruiting child soldiers can stay in Britain
An asylum seeker suspected of recruiting child soldiers for the Tamil Tigers has won a human rights case to stay in Britain. The Sri Lankan has been allowed to remain in the UK despite claims he had 'enlisted children under the age of 15' in the militant group. The French justice system previously ruled that he should be denied asylum in France due to the allegations, an immigration tribunal heard. However, British judges ruled that there was not enough evidence to say the allegations were true, and he has been granted refugee status. The Home Office, which attempted to deport him, tried to fight the ruling, but lost its appeal. The identity of the migrant has not been revealed as he was granted anonymity by the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. The hearing, in London, was told that before he arrived in the UK, the Sri Lankan was alleged to have recruited child soldiers for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - also known as the Tamil Tigers. The LTTE is a militant terrorist organisation founded in Sri Lanka. It was heard that the unnamed Sri Lankan was working for the Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) - a refugee charity - but was secretly supplying information. Before arriving in the UK, the French asylum court - the Cour nationale du droit d'asile - found that he 'ought to be excluded from a grant of asylum under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention due to his alleged involvement in war crimes, in this case the alleged recruitment of children'. In Britain, the Home Office refused him refugee status, but in 2023, he won an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber against the decision. At the time, the judge found that the Home Office 'had not shown serious grounds for concluding that [the Sri Lankan] was guilty of the war crime of conscription or enlistment of children under the age of 15 or using them to participate actively in hostilities'. The judge at the 2023 hearing concluded: 'I am not satisfied even on the evidence of his own admissions, accurate or otherwise, to the French that this goes far enough to show that the [Sri Lankan] was effectively collecting information which he knew was going to be misused, and misused specifically for the recruitment of child soldiers under the age of 15. 'Nor am I satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering on all the evidence adduced that the [respondent] has been shown to have knowingly materially assisted in the recruitment of child soldiers under the age of 15, by the work done by the TRO in gathering information, possibly subsequently used by the LTTE for that purpose.' The Home Office appealed that decision at the Upper Tribunal, but lost its case. Home Office lawyers argued that the judge in 2023 did not attach enough weight to the French court decision. Lawyers argued that the judge 'ought to have followed the French Court and that inadequate reasons were given by the judge for not doing so'. But, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Adrian Seelhoff ruled that the 2023 hearing considered the French decision 'extensively'. Judge Seelhoff said: 'The Judge assessed that evidence to see if it supported the [Home Office's] case that [the Sri Lankan], whilst working for the TRO, supplied details which the LTTE used to recruit child soldiers. '[The Home Office's] position before us was not that the judge was bound to follow the French court decision, but that he had not given adequate reasons for reaching a different decision or that he failed to attach weight to the decision. 'We find that the judge did give adequate reasons for not following that decision, and for the weight he attached to it and that accordingly there is no error of law in the decision under appeal.'
The Sun
01-06-2025
- General
- The Sun
Illegal immigrant who overstayed in the UK for 25 years allowed to remain as she has been here too long, court rules
AN ILLEGAL immigrant who used fake documents and was jailed for fraud is allowed to stay in the UK because she has lived here so long. Joyce Baidoo overstayed in the UK for 25 years but an asylum court ruled she has been gone from Ghana for too long to send her back. 2 The 57-year-old has been in the UK without permission since 2000, even avoiding being kicked out of the country when she was jailed for fraud. The Home Office issued a deportation order in 2007 following her conviction but she has remained in the UK. Now, 25 years after her arrival, the Ghanaian has won a human rights case to stay in the UK. Ms Baidoo argued she has been in the UK for so long she would not be able to "reintegrate" into Ghanaian culture. Ruling in her favour, a judge found she put forward a "very compelling" argument when she said her "long absence" would lead to "significant obstacles" in her home country. Ms Baidoo won her case at the First tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, then won again when the Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the decision by the Home Office. The Upper Tribunal was told: "[Ms Baidoo] had sought to leave to remain in the United Kingdom outside the Immigration Rules on the basis of her private life. "Her application was made on 13 September 2021. "[Ms Baidoo], an overstayer since 2000, is the subject of a decision to make a deportation order dated 15 May 2007. "[She] was convicted of using false identity documents and was sentenced to [10 months]. "[She] pleaded continuous long residence, and claimed that her departure would have a detrimental effect on her mental health. "[Ms Baidoo] also said that there would be significant obstacles to her reintegration into Ghanaian culture because of her long absence, the lack of family support and the lack of employment opportunities she would have there. "She claimed that she would be left destitute, resulting in unjustifiably harsh consequences for her." "By the date of the First-tier Tribunal hearing [she] had been in the United Kingdom for 24 years." The First-tier Tribunal, was satisfied that there were circumstances in her case which outweighed the public interest in her being removed and that it would be "disproportionate" to deport her. First-Tier Tribunal Judge Jeffrey Cameron, sitting earlier this year, ruled: "The evidence before me does indicate that [Ms Baidoo] on return to Ghana would not have any family support given that her husband has died, and she has no contact with her children. "Given her age and [that she has] mental health problems it is unlikely that she would be able to within a reasonable period of time obtain employment and although she may be entitled to some support from the government by voluntarily agreeing to removal this would be short-term.' The Home Office appealed, arguing that the tribunal "failed to provide adequate reasons". By Jack Elson TOP judges stirred up fresh anger last night for proposing soft punishments that would let immigration offenders dodge deportation. Draft guidance for judges puts the 'starting point' for a range of border crimes at less than 12 months in prison - the threshold that triggers their removal. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick warned the draft rules would be 'catnip for human rights lawyers'. The Sentencing Council — an independent quango made up of senior legal figures — is already on the rack, accused of creating a two-tier justice system with its guidance to go easier on ethnic minority offenders for general crimes in the UK. Its latest consultation puts the starting sentence for 'knowingly entering the UK without valid entry clearance' at six months if offenders claim to have fled persecution or been coerced. Foreign criminals guilty of 'deception' tactics to stay in the UK could escape with a community order. Possessing false documents could be met with just six months' jail. But long terms are recommended for the worst offenders, with 14 years the starting point for the most serious facilitation of border crimes — although ministers recently passed laws to make it life. It is the first time the Sentencing Council has issued guidance on such immigration offences. But at the Upper Tribunal has now dismissed their appeal. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Richard Manuell concluded: "It was not 'speculative' of the Judge to conclude that Ms Baidoo would be destitute. "He looked at various factors, including the absence of support and the period of absence and reached conclusions that were properly reasoned and open to him. "The Judge gave cogent reasons for reaching his conclusions. Proportionality and reasonableness had been fully covered. The onwards appeal should be dismissed. "Thus in the Tribunal's judgment the First-tier Tribunal Judge reached sustainable findings, in the course of a thorough determination, which securely resolved all of the issues. "There was no material error of law." It comes three weeks after it was revealed that judges who let foreign offenders dodge deportation with human rights claims will finally be brought to heel under Sir Keir Starmer's plans. The PM confirmed that he will stop courts thwarting removals with a 'spurious reading of immigration rules' as part of a 'common sense' crackdown. The package will focus on cutting the hundreds of thousands who arrive legally each year. Controls will be tightened across 'every area of the immigration system'. And most migrants will need to have lived in the UK for ten years to be able to apply for settlement, up from the current five years. Only highly-skilled foreign workers who demonstrate a valuable contribution to the economy will be fast-tracked to ensure settlement is 'a privilege that must be earned, not a right'. English tests will be toughened, and family members of overseas workers will also for the first time need to speak the language and demonstrate a 'commitment to integration'. Almost a million people in England can barely speak the language, leaving them struggling to integrate. , who have contributed to big rises in net migration in recent years. Recent cases have seen foreign offenders granted permission to stay after invoking their 'right to a family life' under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. One Albanian drug dealer even tried to fight his deportation because his son did not like foreign chicken nuggets.
Telegraph
31-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Illegal migrant cannot be deported because she stayed in Britain too long
An illegal migrant cannot be deported because she has stayed in Britain too long, an asylum court has ruled. Joyce Baidoo, 57, has been in the UK without permission since 2000, the court was told. The Home Office issued a deportation order in 2007 after she was convicted of fraud for using false identity documents and imprisoned for 10 months. But she has remained in the UK. Now, 25 years after her arrival, the Ghanaian has won a human rights case to stay in the UK. Ms Baidoo argued she had been in the UK for so long she would not be able to 'reintegrate' into Ghanaian culture. Ruling in her favour, a judge found she put forward a 'very compelling' argument when she said her 'long absence' would lead to 'significant obstacles' in her home country. Ms Baidoo won her case at the first-tier tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, then won again when the upper tribunal dismissed an appeal against the decision by the Home Office. The upper tribunal was told Ms Baidoo had sought leave to remain in the UK outside the Immigration Rules in September 2021 on the basis of her private life. 'She pleaded continuous long residence, and claimed that her departure would have a detrimental effect on her mental health,' the tribunal heard. 'She also said that there would be significant obstacles to her reintegration into Ghanaian culture because of her long absence, the lack of family support and the lack of employment opportunities she would have there. 'She claimed that she would be left destitute, resulting in unjustifiably harsh consequences for her.' Judge Jeffrey Cameron of the first-tier tribunal had ruled earlier this year: 'The evidence before me does indicate that Ms Baidoo on return to Ghana would not have any family support given that her husband has died, and she has no contact with her children. 'Given her age and [that she has] mental health problems it is unlikely that she would be able to within a reasonable period of time obtain employment and although she may be entitled to some support from the Government by voluntarily agreeing to removal, this would be short-term.' In its appeal, the Home Office argued that the tribunal 'failed to provide adequate reasons'. But Judge Richard Manuell at the upper tribunal concluded: 'It was not 'speculative' of the judge to conclude that Ms Baidoo would be destitute. 'He looked at various factors, including the absence of support and the period of absence, and reached conclusions that were properly reasoned and open to him. 'The judge gave cogent reasons for reaching his conclusions. Proportionality and reasonableness had been fully covered. The onwards appeal should be dismissed. There was no material error of law.'
