A migrant has been allowed to appeal his case after a judge first rejected his request for asylum in the UK.
The man, who holds a Pakistani passport, told authorities that he is actually Afghan. He made this claim in an effort to avoid being removed from the UK. He arrived in the country with his wife and children and later applied for asylum. He said the Pakistani passport was obtained dishonestly and does not reflect his true nationality.
He argues that sending him out of the UK would break his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He says deporting him, especially to Afghanistan, would separate or endanger his family. His case was first reviewed by a lower immigration tribunal, which agreed with the Home Office and rejected his asylum claim.
That judge also dismissed his argument that he would face danger from the Taliban if sent to Afghanistan. The tribunal concluded there was not enough evidence that he would be personally targeted by the country’s hard-line rulers, the Taliban.
However, the decision did not end there. The case was later examined by an upper immigration tribunal, which found that the original ruling contained serious mistakes. Because of those errors, the higher court allowed the man to appeal and ordered that his case be heard again from the beginning.
The upper tribunal rejected the idea that the man could legally hold both Pakistani and Afghan nationality, pointing out that Afghanistan does not allow dual citizenship. Even so, the judges accepted his argument that the Taliban have been known to go after people who previously fled to Pakistan, which could place him at risk if returned.
The higher court also criticised the lower tribunal’s reasoning about the man’s children. It said it made no sense to claim the children’s best interests would be protected if they stayed with their parents in Britain, Kuwait, Pakistan, or even Afghanistan, without properly considering the real risks and disruption involved.
The man’s name has not been released publicly. He will now be given a fresh hearing, where all evidence will be reviewed again. The case was reported by GB News.
This ruling comes at a time when the Home Office has announced major changes to the UK asylum system. Under the new plans, refugee status would no longer be permanent and would instead be reviewed every 30 months. Refugees would also have to wait up to 20 years before they could apply for permanent settlement, compared with five years under the current system.
The reforms could also remove the government’s legal duty to provide housing and financial support to asylum seekers, meaning accommodation and weekly payments may no longer be guaranteed. In addition, the current appeals process may be replaced with a system that allows only one appeal, and the use of Article 8 to block deportations is expected to be much more restricted.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has described these changes as the biggest overhaul of the UK asylum system in modern times.
