13-05-2025
Kenyan migrant allowed to stay in Britain thanks to 'typo riddled' document
A bisexual Kenyan migrant has won a legal battle to stay in Britain after it was found a judgement dismissing her asylum claim was 'riddled' with errors and typos.
The married asylum seeker, who was granted anonymity, fled the African country in 2018 after her family discovered she was having an affair with a woman.
She feared she would be 'killed' by her husband or the authorities if she were to return to Kenya, it was heard.
After her case was rejected by the Home Office, she appealed to the First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.
Her case was dismissed again with a judge finding that she would be able to find sufficient 'protection' in Africa.
But the Upper Tier Tribunal has found the judgement dismissing her claims was littered with several 'careless' errors and 'misstatements' of evidence.
Now, it has been ruled she should have her case reheard as anyone considering the judgment would not be 'satisfied' that 'anxious scrutiny' had been applied to her case.
Upper Tribunal Judge David Pickup said: 'The decision is so riddled with errors, both typographical and misstatements of the evidence, together with a misunderstanding of the purport of the objective evidence, that the objective reader of the decision cannot be at all satisfied that anxious scrutiny has been applied to the [asylum seeker's] case.
'I am driven to the conclusion that in these circumstances it would be unfair to permit the decision to stand and that collectively the errors amount to a material error off law.'
The Upper Tribunal heard the woman left Kenya in 2018.
In June 2020, she made an asylum claim for international protection on the grounds of sexual orientation having had a same-sex relationship with a fellow-citizen.
The tribunal heard the married asylum seeker met the woman, named only as L, in 2013 and the pair became friends.
Some two years later, they began a sexual relationship which lasted until she fled the country, it was heard.
The woman said she had to leave after a technician who was backing up her phone found intimate photos of the pair.
She said that the 'news spread' and her family and husband found out, resulting in them allegedly becoming involved in the planning of an attack on her partner.
The asylum seeker claimed to fear that she would be 'killed by her husband and by the authorities' in light of the relationship.
Her claim was refused in December of 2023 and she appealed the matter to the First-tier Tribunal.
But, in November last year, they rejected her appeal.
However, the upper tribunal found the initial decision by the lower tribunal to reject her claim appeared to have been 'made in haste' as the ruling contained several 'careless errors'.
In one 'significant' error, the decision stated the Kenyan woman 'is entitled to humanitarian protection' instead of saying she was 'not' entitled to this.
Judge Pickup said anyone reading the decision would be 'most unimpressed and led to doubt that anxious scrutiny had been applied to the case'.
Lawyers representing the asylum seeker argued the judge failed to give 'adequate reasoning' to support some statements made in the decision.
And, they said the judge 'misstated' the woman's case.
For example, the First-Tier Judge said they did not find it 'credible' the Kenyan was able to keep her relationship 'a secret' from her family for five years.
The lawyer, however, said it was not the asylum seeker's case the 'relationship' between herself and the woman was kept from the family, as she claimed her partner had been introduced to her relatives as 'a friend'.
It was said the relationship was 'not purely or exclusively sexual' and visits by the asylum seeker and her children to the woman's flat would not have been regarded as 'untoward'.
The news comes as Britain continues to clampdown on migrants illegally crossing the Channel (pictured are asylum seekers making their way to the UK in a small boat in March)
Judge Pickup said: 'It may be that the judge intended to refer to the sexual relationship, but it remains far from clear.'
In his ruling, he recognised there were examples in which the judge had 'misstated or misunderstood' the case of the asylum seeker.
He said there were 'clear errors' in the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal judge's decision relating to the 'sufficiency of protection' for the asylum seeker.
The judgement said she would 'be able to seek sufficient protection from the state as a gay woman in Kenya' and referred to Country Policy and Information Notes.
But, Judge Pickup said these documents do not in fact support this conclusion, as they say 'the state appears able but unwilling to offer effective protection'.
Lawyers representing the Home Office said despite the 'shortcomings' of the First-tier Tribunal decision, the judge had 'done enough'.
Judge Pickup ruled the woman can have her case reheard.
The judge noted the typographical errors are not by themselves 'material to the outcome of the appeal' - but are 'relevant' to his findings of the way in which his case was 'addressed'.
Last month, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, unveiled plans for a new legal framework to tackle 'perverse' and 'ad hoc' judgments overruling Home Office efforts to deport foreign criminals and illegal migrants.
On Monday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced sweeping new reforms to clampdown on migration.
In a bid to drive down migration, the PM revealed a plan to ban recruitment of care workers from overseas, tighten access to skilled worker visas and raise the costs to employers.
Sir Keir did not set an exact target, but the Home Office estimated the new reforms could lead to a 100,000 drop in immigration per year by 2029.
However, the Prime Minister came under fire over the plans, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch saying: 'This is nowhere near the scale of the change we need to see.'
MailOnline has approached the Home Office about the ruling of the Kenyan asylum seeker.
