Latest news with #UpperTribunal
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Albanian drug dealer who illegally sneaked back into Britain weeks after being deported succeeds in remaining in the UK by judge
An Albanian drug dealer who sneaked back into Britain just weeks after being deported has succeed to remain in the UK - even after committing more crimes on his return. Stiljano Ziu has been allowed to stay in the UK despite the asylum court hearing he committed a 'flagrant' breach of immigration laws, having already been deported from the country once. Ziu was jailed for producing cannabis just months after entering Britain illegally, it was heard. He then 'took advantage of the early release scheme' by agreeing to deportation in exchange for finishing his sentence early. He then entered the UK again illegally just weeks later. During his second illegal stint in the UK, which is still ongoing, Ziu committed more drugs offences and was recently jailed for four and a half years. A crown court judge previously said of Ziu that he came to the UK 'prepared to do any activity, legal or illegal', the asylum court heard. However, after a long and complicated legal process he has won his fight to remain in the UK after the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal ruled in his favour. Ziu won his appeal due to his marriage to a Greek woman in the UK after entering the country for the second time. The Home Office had refused to give him a residence card after his marriage. Ziu won his case after the asylum court heard he was not a 'present threat'. Ziu may still face deportation as a result of his recent drugs conviction, Upper Tribunal Judge Jonathan Perkins said. The Upper Tribunal heard Ziu first entered the UK unlawfully in 2017 or 2018 and by November 2018 was convicted of producing cannabis charges and was jailed for nine months. He was released from his prison sentence early, on the basis he agreed to be deported in December 2018. However he was already back in early 2019. 'He returned within weeks in clear breach of the deportation order', the tribunal was told. 'There can be no clearer case of abuse of immigration laws. 'He took advantage of the early release scheme and had no intention of remaining in Albania. 'He had the resources, means and contacts to return illegally.' His presence in the UK went unnoticed until December 2020 when he applied for a residence card as the spouse of a Greek woman exercising treaty rights in the UK. He had met her upon his return and married her in April 2021. 'He is still benefitting from his illegal entry and worked illegally too', it was heard. The Home Office refused Ziu's request, leading to his case at the asylum court. During court hearings it had to be determined whether the Home Office had showed that Ziu presented a 'present threat'. At one hearing in 2022, the Home Office accepted that there was 'not a present serious threat in relation to a propensity to re-offend'. At a 2023 hearing, Ziu won the first stage of his appeal. The judge in 2023 criticised Ziu's 'flagrant and serious breach of UK immigration laws' but said the Home Office had not shown he was a 'present threat' of re-offending. The decision led to the Home Office appealing it at the Upper Tribunal. Before the Upper Tribunal hearing, Ziu wrote a letter stating that in November 2024 he was jailed for four and a half years for conspiring to supply class B drugs. The offending happened between January 2020 and June 2022. At the Upper Tribunal hearing, it was ruled that the Home Office had not successfully challenged the 2023 decision that Ziu was not a risk of re-offending. But, Judge Perkins admitted 'it may be that this case has been an academic exercise' because Ziu may now face deportation due to his recent conviction. Judge Perkins said: 'Putting everything together we are satisfied that the judge [in 2023] made a decision that was open to her and gave lawful reasons. 'We therefore dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal. 'What happens next is of course a matter for the Secretary of State. 'However, [Ziu] must understand that his recent conviction has resulted in a sentence that may require his deportation from the United Kingdom and that is something the Secretary of State will consider. 'Nevertheless... we find that the Secretary of State has failed to show that the [2023] tribunal erred in law and we dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal.'
Telegraph
18-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Family photos could help second home owners swerve tax raid
Second home owners could avoid double council tax bills on a property if there are family photos and heirlooms on display, a Scottish ruling suggests. Court documents published last week indicate the presence of sentimental items can help families to prove a property is their main residence and not a second home. It comes after more than 200 authorities in England brought in a 100pc council tax premium on second home owners from April 1. Authorities in Wales and Scotland have held similar powers since 2017 and 2024 respectively. The recent ruling from the Upper Tribunal for Scotland centres around 'Mr A' who owns a home in the Shetland Islands but works in Saudi Arabia for most of the year, according to Scottish Legal News. Mr A launched an appeal against the council raising the tax bill on his Shetlands property to £2,048. Mr A and his wife argued the house on the archipelago was their main residence, despite the fact their children attend school abroad. They also claimed it was their intention to move back to the Shetlands property permanently in the future. The case was first rejected by Scotland's First-tier Tribunal (FTS) chamber in October, but a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal has proved successful, and it will again be heard by the FTS at a later date. Family photographs and heirlooms were not stated as a defence, however, Judge Sheriff McCartney suggested in the ruling that such an argument could add weight to future claims. She said: 'The question of whether a property is a main or sole residence is fact sensitive. 'It requires the decision maker to have a clear understanding of the relevant facts.' She continued to state several factors were influential in the case, including: how much time the family spent at the property; their ties to each home including where they book dentists' and doctors appointments; the whereabouts of personal belongings such as photographs, heirlooms and 'items of sentimental value'; their living arrangements abroad; and details of Mr A's work contract. Ben Menahem, of law firm Seddons GSC, said: ' Second home owners may well begin to rely on this reasoning to challenge higher council tax premiums, arguing that the presence of such items reflects the property's use as a main residence.' Johnny Drysdale, a property lawyer at Keystone Law, said it is 'interesting to note the judge's broadening of the criteria of what is a main residence'. He added: 'Scottish judgements are not binding on English courts but commentary from judges across the border can be persuasive and influential. 'If these types of quite tenuous ties to a property can be included in the assessment, then we are going to see this tax challenged by people in England and Wales for the same reasons. 'Photographs and items of sentimental value seem very broad and open to interpretation.' Shetland Islands Council enforced the penalty on its 221 second homes last April in an effort to boost availability for locals. It is one of many local authorities across Britain to launch a tax raid on second home owners. Those in England have seen their annual bills rocket to £3,672 on average, according to Telegraph analysis. Andrew Hazeldine, of law firm Aaron & Partners, said the Scottish ruling mentioning presence of family photographs in a second home 'could potentially open up a loophole of sorts'. But he warned that 'simply putting some items of sentimental value or photographs into an unoccupied property is unlikely to sway the court's decision significantly'. Aaron Peake, of credit score service CredAbility, said: 'A couple of framed photos and a few keepsakes aren't going to outweigh hard evidence. 'This ruling doesn't open the door for a flood of people dodging council tax by putting up a few family snaps. In fact, I'd caution anyone thinking about it.'
Daily Mail
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
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.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iranian ‘sex toy smuggler' wins right to remain in Britain
An Iranian asylum seeker who argued he could not be deported because he was a 'sex toy smuggler' has won his legal battle to remain in Britain. The unnamed man applied for refugee status in the UK, claiming that the authorities in his home country looked on his illicit business activities adversely. He claimed he smuggled boxes of vibrators and other adult devices across the border. Under Islamic law, sex toys are illegal and there is a ban on bringing them into Iran. The Iranian man's 'elaborate' argument was dismissed by a lower-tier immigration tribunal, which said he gave 'inconsistent' and 'implausible' evidence to support it. However, he successfully appealed the decision in an upper-tier immigration tribunal after claiming asylum on different grounds. He argued that he would face persecution if returned to Iran on the basis of his campaigning against the Tehran regime at protests in London and on Facebook. The upper tribunal backed his asylum claim on the basis that he would face persecution if returned to Iran, which would breach his human rights under the Refugee Convention. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to remain in the UK or halt their deportations. There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour's efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants. As part of his bid for refugee status, the Iranian, who was granted anonymity, took his case to the first-tier tribunal where he said he had come to the 'adverse attention of the Iranian authorities as a smuggler of sex toys.' But the tribunal did not accept his account, saying he gave 'inconsistent evidence about the number of boxes he smuggled'. 'The circumstances in which it was claimed that the authorities had identified him from material he had left behind were found to be implausible,' say the court papers. The first-tier tribunal also dismissed his claims that he would face persecution because of his protests against the Tehran regime. It found that his political expressions at demonstrations and subsequent anti-Iran posts on Facebook were not genuine and were a ruse to help him secure refugee status. However, the Iranian appealed his case at the Upper Tribunal, which found that the first-tier tribunal made a mistake in its findings about his protests. Upper Tribunal Judge Paul Lodato said: 'My starting point must be that I should approach the [Iranian's] evidence with a degree of caution because he is a man who has been found to have contrived an elaborate and false narrative about the events he claims caused him to flee Iran.' Turning to the protests, Judge Lodato said the man attended nine demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy in London with photographic evidence confirming his presence. Although not a 'central or prominent' protester, it showed he had been committed to demonstrations over almost four years. The Home Office argued that the fact he began to engage in political activity so soon after his arrival in the UK indicated it was a fabricated claim 'bolstered by false activity.' Judge Lodato said: 'I have examined [the Iranian man's Facebook with care. It reveals a consistent and committed outpouring of political opinion over a considerable period. 'It can be seen that he has been posting anti-regime and pro-Kurdish rhetoric on a regular basis since October 2021. 'I have carefully considered the timing of his posts to assess whether his political opinions betrayed the mechanical and routine postings which might be expected of a metronomic and cynical excise designed to bolster a false asylum claim. 'I could discern no such patterns. Instead, the frequency resonated with a more natural engagement with political social media of this nature.' The judge found that the Iranian would face 'real risk of persecution' and the man won his appeal on refugee convention grounds. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Iranian ‘sex toy smuggler' wins right to remain in Britain
An Iranian asylum seeker who argued he could not be deported because he was a 'sex toy smuggler' has won his legal battle to remain in Britain. The unnamed man applied for refugee status in the UK, claiming that the authorities in his home country looked on his illicit business activities adversely. He claimed he smuggled boxes of vibrators and other adult devices across the border. Under Islamic law, sex toys are illegal and there is a ban on bringing them into Iran. The Iranian man's 'elaborate' argument was dismissed by a lower-tier immigration tribunal, which said he gave 'inconsistent' and 'implausible' evidence to support it. However, he successfully appealed the decision in an upper-tier immigration tribunal after claiming asylum on different grounds. He argued that he would face persecution if returned to Iran on the basis of his campaigning against the Tehran regime at protests in London and on Facebook. The upper tribunal backed his asylum claim on the basis that he would face persecution if returned to Iran, which would breach his human rights under the Refugee Convention. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to remain in the UK or halt their deportations. There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour's efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants. As part of his bid for refugee status, the Iranian, who was granted anonymity, took his case to the first-tier tribunal where he said he had come to the 'adverse attention of the Iranian authorities as a smuggler of sex toys.' But the tribunal did not accept his account, saying he gave 'inconsistent evidence about the number of boxes he smuggled'. 'The circumstances in which it was claimed that the authorities had identified him from material he had left behind were found to be implausible,' say the court papers. The first-tier tribunal also dismissed his claims that he would face persecution because of his protests against the Tehran regime. It found that his political expressions at demonstrations and subsequent anti-Iran posts on Facebook were not genuine and were a ruse to help him secure refugee status. However, the Iranian appealed his case at the Upper Tribunal, which found that the first-tier tribunal made a mistake in its findings about his protests. Upper Tribunal Judge Paul Lodato said: 'My starting point must be that I should approach the [Iranian's] evidence with a degree of caution because he is a man who has been found to have contrived an elaborate and false narrative about the events he claims caused him to flee Iran.' Turning to the protests, Judge Lodato said the man attended nine demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy in London with photographic evidence confirming his presence. Although not a 'central or prominent' protester, it showed he had been committed to demonstrations over almost four years. The Home Office argued that the fact he began to engage in political activity so soon after his arrival in the UK indicated it was a fabricated claim 'bolstered by false activity.' Judge Lodato said: 'I have examined [the Iranian man's Facebook with care. It reveals a consistent and committed outpouring of political opinion over a considerable period. 'It can be seen that he has been posting anti-regime and pro-Kurdish rhetoric on a regular basis since October 2021. 'I have carefully considered the timing of his posts to assess whether his political opinions betrayed the mechanical and routine postings which might be expected of a metronomic and cynical excise designed to bolster a false asylum claim. 'I could discern no such patterns. Instead, the frequency resonated with a more natural engagement with political social media of this nature.' The judge found that the Iranian would face 'real risk of persecution' and the man won his appeal on refugee convention grounds.
