Illegal migrant cannot be deported because she stayed in Britain too long

Telegraph

2 days ago

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.'