Latest news with #immigrationtribunal
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Iraqi who argued he cannot be deported because he is divorced, wins appeal after legal error
An Iraqi who entered the UK illegally has won an appeal after arguing he cannot be deported because he is divorced. In claims disputed by the Home Office, he said he divorced a 'prominent' politician's daughter and brought 'dishonour' upon their family. The Iraqi said it would breach his human rights to send him back to Iraq because he was at risk of an 'honour feud'. The Iraqi, who was granted anonymity, has won an appeal at an upper immigration tribunal for his case to be reheard after it was initially rejected by the Home Office and lower court. The Iraqi entered Britain 'clandestinely' in 2020 after travelling through Turkey and across Europe before arriving by boat in the UK. He submitted his application for asylum the following day. The court was told that his 'claim for asylum is based upon a claimed risk of being a victim of an honour-based crime'. 'He alleges that he fled Iraq due to threats from his former father-in-law, a prominent and influential politician affiliated with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. 'According to the [Iraqi], he was accused of bringing dishonour upon [his ex-father-in-law's] family by divorcing his daughter,' the court was told. It was accepted that he was married and went through a divorce, but the Home Office 'did not accept that he had experienced problems from his ex-father-in-law'. The Home Office issued a deportation order but the Iraqi, who had a child with his ex-wife, appealed the decision. His challenge was dismissed by a lower tribunal as the judge questioned 'the credibility of the marriage itself'. The First-tier Tribunal said there was a 'disparity in social status' between his ex-wife – the daughter of a powerful politician – and him, a 'minimally educated taxi driver from a marginalised tribe'. A claim by the Iraqi that he had also been the victim of a 'violent' attack linked to the honour feud and stabbed 17 times was dismissed as implausible by the judge, partly because it was 'unsubstantiated' by any medical evidence. The judge said the asylum claim appeared a 'complete fabrication'. The Iraqi appealed to the upper tribunal where the judge Sara Anzani said the lower court was wrong to question the marriage and divorce certificates and said the Iraqi was not given a chance to respond to their doubts. Judge Anzani said: 'These concerns about the reliability and authenticity of the marriage and divorce certificates were not previously raised by the [Home Office], nor were they put to the [Iraqi] during the hearing. 'I find that the Judge's failure to raise his concerns about the authenticity and reliability of the marriage and divorce certificates, concerns not previously identified by the [Home Office], deprived the [Iraqi] of a fair opportunity to address the Judge's doubts. 'The Judge's findings on the marriage and divorce certificates contribute to his overall assessment of the [Iraqi's] credibility, and the ultimate finding that [his] claim was fabricated. 'Consequently, this procedural error is material and permeates the entirety of the Judge's decision'. Judge Anzani concluded that the case must be heard afresh at the First-tier Tribunal again, but not by the previous judge.
Telegraph
22-06-2025
- Telegraph
Sex predator can stay because home country can't treat his mental illness
A dangerous sexual predator has been allowed to stay in the UK after claiming his home country could not treat his mental illness. An immigration tribunal backed the Bangladeshi man's claims that he should be allowed to stay in the UK despite his convictions for a violent sexual assault on a stranger when he was 17. The Metropolitan Police also provided evidence that he had carried out further sexual offences in the decade since the assault even though he had not been convicted of them. He was also convicted for conspiring to supply 'significant' quantities of heroin as part of a county lines gang. 'High risk of harm to the public' The Home Office argued that he was a sexual predator who was likely to reoffend if he remained free and presented a 'high risk of harm to the public.' A lower tier immigration tribunal, however, accepted expert evidence that he had undergone rehabilitation and could be safely managed in the community. It also agreed that he would face persecution in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if returned to Bangladesh, which did not have the facilities to treat his mental illness, and had a reputation for treating those suffering such ill health as outcasts. It ruled the man should be given asylum. However, its decision was overruled by an upper tribunal which concluded it was mistaken in its assessment that the Bangladeshi was not still a sexual predator who posed a threat to the public. It ordered that there should be a re-hearing of the case by a new lower tier tribunal. 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 deportations. 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 which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has pledged to change the law so that any foreign national convicted of a sex offence will be barred from refugee status in the UK. The tribunals were told that the Bangladeshi had attacked the woman after he offered to walk her to a bus stop, claiming that she was drunk and needed his help. As they walked through a park, he pulled her to the ground, ripped off her bra and started to assault her. He was 17 at the time and handed an 18 month detention and training order at a secure training unit for sexual assault. The judge said the Bangladeshi man had been 'insincere' in his expressions of remorse and failed to recognise his guilt. 'Highly vulnerable' However, the lower tribunal set store on an expert witness who backed his rehabilitation and that he was at low risk of any further sexual offending. This was despite evidence that the expert had been previously heavily criticised over a similar risk assessment. The upper tribunal concluded that he 'posed a high risk of reoffending and a high risk of harm to the public having regard to the particular nature of the offence for which he has been convicted.' It said the victim, who was highly vulnerable, had suffered serious psychological harm which had led to her attempting to commit suicide. The upper tribunal ruled: 'The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved material errors of law. We set aside the decision and do not preserve any findings of fact. The matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard before a judge other than the judges who decided the [Bangladeshi's] appeal proceedings.'
Telegraph
21-06-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Asylum seekers allowed to stay because of high blood pressure
An elderly Sri Lankan couple won the right to stay in the UK after claiming that treatment for high blood pressure in their home country was 'inadequate'. The unnamed husband and wife, who are in their late 60s, came to Britain to visit their daughter and son-in-law in 2022. But two months later they claimed asylum, and when this was denied by the Home Office they successfully appealed. The husband told an immigration tribunal he was suffering from depression, severe anxiety, hypertension and diabetes and suggested he was 'unwilling' to access care in the South Asian nation. An asylum judge agreed that sending them back would breach their human rights. The Home Office challenged the ruling that they could stay because of poor quality medical treatment in Sri Lanka by arguing the first judge had not shown that the husband was 'seriously ill'. But the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber disagreed and ruled in favour of their claim. The hearing was told that the couple, who were granted anonymity by the court, entered the UK in May 2022. In July that year the husband made a claim for asylum with his wife as a dependent, alleging a fear of persecution due to threats made by the family of another son-in-law. They then brought further claims on protection and human rights grounds that were rejected by the Home Office in February last year. The husband appealed the decision at a First-tier Tribunal, where he confirmed they were not challenging the protection or asylum decisions, just the human rights claim. He made his argument under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), respectively covering inhumane or degrading treatment and the right to a family life. The husband submitted that he would not be able to get adequate care in Sri Lanka for his depression, severe anxiety, high blood pressure and diabetes. The couple also claimed there was a 'real risk' they could commit suicide if they were forced to return to their home country based on their mental state and 'subjective fear'. Their appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal. The Home Office chose to appeal the asylum tribunal's findings, arguing that 'inadequacy' of treatment is not the same as someone being unable to access it. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Stuart Neilson found that there was no legal error by the First-tier tribunal. The judge dismissed the Home Office's appeal, meaning the First-tier Tribunal's decision stands and the couple will be allowed to remain in the UK. He said: 'Finally on the issue of the First-tier Tribunal referencing both the 'inadequacy' of the treatment and the 'willingness' of the respondent to undertake any treatment in Sri Lanka I do not consider that the use of this language in the determination represents an error of law. 'The inadequacy of the treatment may amount to absence of appropriate treatment and depending upon the circumstances both 'willingness' and the 'inadequacy' of the treatment may have some relevance to the issue of access.'
Daily Mail
29-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Pakistani drug dealer allowed to stay in Britain so he can 'talk to his son about Islam and culture'
A Pakistani drug dealer has dodged deportation after a judge said he played a key role in teaching his son about Islam and his culture. Muhammad Asif Karim, 43, amassed 21 offences after arriving on a visa to visit the UK in 1998 and never going home. He was jailed for four years for possessing heroin and cocaine with intent to supply but allowed to remain in Britain after becoming a prosecution witness in a murder trial. However, he was kicked out of a witness protection scheme when he continued to offend, and ten years ago he was ordered to be deported back to Pakistan. He only sees his son by a white British mother twice a month, an immigration tribunal heard. But a judge in Edinburgh has now ruled that he can remain in the UK after hearing from the boy on how his father taught him about 'religion', 'culture' and his 'life and upbringing in Pakistan'. In addition the boy's mother had said Karim 'could talk to his son about studying and job choices, he could teach him to shave and talk to him about things a mother could not'. The child was unaware of his father's criminal history. Last October a first-tier immigration judge allowed his human rights appeal against deportation under the controversial 'right to private and family life' under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Now an immigration appeals judge has rejected a Home Office bid to overturn the decision, saying deportation would be 'unduly harsh'. The judge said the boy spoke about how 'his dad is able to talk to him about Islam, about Pakistani culture and his own upbringing'. 'We do not think it controversial to suggest that such matters would have significance for this child, who is himself of Pakistani origin, but is being largely brought up by his white British mother,' he said. Judges felt they were matters 'fundamental to his identity.' They said that while there was 'a particularly strong public interest in removing someone who habitually committed crimes over a 14-year period', Karim hadn't offended for more than a decade. They also highlighted how Karim had suffered from 'significant and debilitating mental ill-health'. 'There was also evidence that he was himself a survivor of violence, trauma and criminality, all of which had played a role in his troubled youth,' they added. The case comes as ministers pledge to drive down immigration and tighten up the asylum system. New legislation is planned following a backlash against cases such as that of an Albanian criminal whose deportation was halted partly due to his son's aversion to the type of chicken nuggets served abroad. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper want to restrict the 'exceptional circumstances' in which judges can currently overrule the Home Office when foreign nationals - including criminals - lodge immigration appeals. In particular it would aim to 'limit successful claims' from foreign nationals who lodge appeals under Article 8. However critics say the long-awaited White Paper contains only vague pledges and question whether it will tackle abuse of the asylum system.
Telegraph
27-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in the UK after claiming the shame of an extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return. The unnamed 32-year-old claimed he was at risk of an 'honour killing' if he went back to Iraq because of the relationship he had with a woman outside marriage. He told an immigration tribunal that because of the shame the affair had brought on their respective families, he was unable to get anyone in Iraq to provide him with the ID card that he would need to return. Previous tribunals have recognised that Iraqis without IDs are at risk of persecution and violence if they attempt to return and cross through checkpoints to get home. Returning them to their home country would therefore amount to a potential breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects against persecution. The Home Office appealed the lower immigration tribunal's decision to grant him refugee protection, arguing that the judge had made an error in law. Lawyers for the department pointed to official guidance which decreed that a threat of honour killing against a man was not sufficient reason to grant asylum. However, an upper tribunal rejected the Home Office appeal and backed the Iraqi asylum seeker's claim for refugee protection, allowing him to remain in the UK. 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 deportations on human rights grounds. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to curb judges' powers to block deportations with new legally enforced 'common sense' rules to clarify how judges interpret human rights laws and strengthen the public interest test. The lower immigration tribunal was told the Iraqi did not have access to his ID document, which was left in Iraq, and that he did not have any contact with his family there. The judge said: 'Drawing the strands together and reminding myself of the lower standard, I accept that he was in a relationship with X outside of marriage and this brought adverse attention to them both, which caused them to flee. 'I accept that it [his ID document] was left in Iraq and because of the shame that the appellant has brought upon their respective families, he is unable to have someone provide it to him.' The tribunal also accepted that men, as much as women, could be victims of honour crimes, which meant he had a 'well-founded' fear of return to Iraq. This meant the Iraqi's appeal against his removal on asylum and human rights grounds was allowed. 'The grounds of [the Home Office's] appeal are misconceived. The determination does not contain an error of law, material or otherwise,' the court ruled. 'The judge correctly applied the applicable law… the determination shall stand.'
