- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 14,527
- Points
- 113
An Iranian criminal was allowed to stay in the UK after an immigration judge said that he wouldn't be able to form a relationship with his three-year old child or cut his son's hair 'remotely'.
The asylum seeker, who was granted anonymity, avoided deportation after it was ruled that it would be too harsh on the toddler.
It was heard the Iranian - who 'absconded' immigration control for over a decade and whose asylum case has gone on for more than 20 years - was 'very involved' in raising his child, and would cut his hair and play with him.
A tribunal heard the man - who 'thwarted' deportation - was allowed to remain in the UK after a judge ruled that he could not maintain this relationship from another country.
The Home Office have since appealed this decision, arguing the judge gave inadequate reasons for his ruling.
His claim will now be reheard.
The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber said the man first arrived in the UK in July 2004 and claimed asylum.
The man was allowed to remain in the UK after a judge ruled that he could not maintain this relationship from another country and that 'hair can't be cut remotely' (stock photo)
He told the authorities that he was 'at risk' upon return as his girlfriend's parents had reported him to the authorities for having sex with her outside of marriage.
But, this account was rejected after his account was found to be 'littered with inconsistencies'.
The man appealed the decision but this was rejected in February the following year.
In July 2008, he was convicted for possessing a false identity document and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment at Maidstone Crown Court in Kent.
Upon release, he was subject to a deportation order and he was told that he must leave the UK imminently.
He made 'further submissions' but the Home Office decided in 2011 that these did not amount to a fresh claim so they refused his attempt to revoke the deportation order.
It was noted that there was a 'significant delay' in enforcing his deportation and that the man 'absconded' between 2013 and 2018.
The Home Office refused the man's human rights claim in 2022 and he was told that he does not qualify for leave to remain in the UK 'on any basis'.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Michael Blackwell ruled that the Iranian's deportation would have 'unduly harsh consequences' on his child (stock photo)
He appealed the decision and his claim was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Michael Blackwell, who ruled that his deportation would have 'unduly harsh consequences' on his child.
The judge ultimately ruled that it was in the child's best interests to have 'both his parents with him in the UK'.
He said: 'Relationships such as play, the sort of relationships that will be most important to a young child, cannot be easily satisfied remotely.
'Nor can hair be cut remotely.'
Lawyers representing the man referred the Upper Tribunal to his witness statement in which he discusses his family life.
It was heard that he is neighbours to his partner and sees his son daily - often spending their time 'just playing' together.
His partner said the man is 'very involved' in raising the young boy, who 'loves' him 'very much'.
The man speaks of how he 'loves his son and would like to see him grow up and to be able to guide him through life'.
He states he is proud of his Kurdish heritage and he wants his son to know he is Kurdish, and to learn about the language and culture.
He said that he 'cuts the hair of his son'.
Lawyers representing the asylum seeker said it would be difficult for his child to visit him in Iran because of the 'political landscape'.
Upper Tribunal Judge Vinesh Mandalia ruled that the case should be reheard.
He said the First Tier Tribunal judge found that the Iranian 'plays an important role' in his son's life.
But Judge Madalia added: 'The judge does not say what that important role is, given the child's age and the fact that he lives with, and his primary carer is, his mother.
'The fact that it is in the child's bests interest to have both parents with him in the UK is not a trump card.
'There will inevitably be an impact on the appellant's son but the fact that the (asylum seeker's) son will not be able to play with his father daily or have his hair cut by him, might be described as harsh or inconvenient, but that is not the test.'
Judge Mandalia said 'adequate reasons' had not been given as to how the impact on the man's son would be 'unduly harsh'.
The asylum seeker, who was granted anonymity, avoided deportation after it was ruled that it would be too harsh on the toddler.
It was heard the Iranian - who 'absconded' immigration control for over a decade and whose asylum case has gone on for more than 20 years - was 'very involved' in raising his child, and would cut his hair and play with him.
A tribunal heard the man - who 'thwarted' deportation - was allowed to remain in the UK after a judge ruled that he could not maintain this relationship from another country.
The Home Office have since appealed this decision, arguing the judge gave inadequate reasons for his ruling.
His claim will now be reheard.
The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber said the man first arrived in the UK in July 2004 and claimed asylum.
The man was allowed to remain in the UK after a judge ruled that he could not maintain this relationship from another country and that 'hair can't be cut remotely' (stock photo)
He told the authorities that he was 'at risk' upon return as his girlfriend's parents had reported him to the authorities for having sex with her outside of marriage.
But, this account was rejected after his account was found to be 'littered with inconsistencies'.
The man appealed the decision but this was rejected in February the following year.
In July 2008, he was convicted for possessing a false identity document and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment at Maidstone Crown Court in Kent.
Upon release, he was subject to a deportation order and he was told that he must leave the UK imminently.
He made 'further submissions' but the Home Office decided in 2011 that these did not amount to a fresh claim so they refused his attempt to revoke the deportation order.
It was noted that there was a 'significant delay' in enforcing his deportation and that the man 'absconded' between 2013 and 2018.
The Home Office refused the man's human rights claim in 2022 and he was told that he does not qualify for leave to remain in the UK 'on any basis'.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Michael Blackwell ruled that the Iranian's deportation would have 'unduly harsh consequences' on his child (stock photo)
He appealed the decision and his claim was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Michael Blackwell, who ruled that his deportation would have 'unduly harsh consequences' on his child.
The judge ultimately ruled that it was in the child's best interests to have 'both his parents with him in the UK'.
He said: 'Relationships such as play, the sort of relationships that will be most important to a young child, cannot be easily satisfied remotely.
'Nor can hair be cut remotely.'
Lawyers representing the man referred the Upper Tribunal to his witness statement in which he discusses his family life.
It was heard that he is neighbours to his partner and sees his son daily - often spending their time 'just playing' together.
His partner said the man is 'very involved' in raising the young boy, who 'loves' him 'very much'.
The man speaks of how he 'loves his son and would like to see him grow up and to be able to guide him through life'.
He states he is proud of his Kurdish heritage and he wants his son to know he is Kurdish, and to learn about the language and culture.
He said that he 'cuts the hair of his son'.
Lawyers representing the asylum seeker said it would be difficult for his child to visit him in Iran because of the 'political landscape'.
Upper Tribunal Judge Vinesh Mandalia ruled that the case should be reheard.
He said the First Tier Tribunal judge found that the Iranian 'plays an important role' in his son's life.
But Judge Madalia added: 'The judge does not say what that important role is, given the child's age and the fact that he lives with, and his primary carer is, his mother.
'The fact that it is in the child's bests interest to have both parents with him in the UK is not a trump card.
'There will inevitably be an impact on the appellant's son but the fact that the (asylum seeker's) son will not be able to play with his father daily or have his hair cut by him, might be described as harsh or inconvenient, but that is not the test.'
Judge Mandalia said 'adequate reasons' had not been given as to how the impact on the man's son would be 'unduly harsh'.
