An illegal Iraqi Kurd migrant has been allowed to remain in the UK after a judge ruled that his lack of identity documents would put him at risk if he were deported back to Iraq.
The 31-year-old, who arrived in Britain in 2016, claimed that his ID papers were stolen by the “agent” who facilitated his journey to the UK.
Since then, he has lost contact with his family, making it impossible for him to retrieve his documents or obtain new ones from the Iraqi embassy in London.
Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder ruled that returning the man to Iraq without proper identification would expose him to significant danger due to the country’s strict border controls and security checks.
She concluded that this would violate his human rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. As a result, she granted him the right to stay in the UK on “humanitarian protection grounds.”
This case highlights a growing issue, as many migrants crossing the Channel to the UK arrive without passports, often having been instructed by smugglers to destroy them. Iraq was one of the top countries of origin for Channel migrants last year, with over 2,000 Iraqis reaching the UK.
The ruling could set a precedent for other migrants in similar situations, raising concerns about the effectiveness of deportation efforts.
The decision has sparked criticism, particularly from shadow home secretary Chris Philp, who called it “ludicrous” and argued that the government should work with the Iraqi embassy to issue new travel documents. He criticized the ruling as lacking common sense and allowing illegal migrants to remain in the UK on “spurious or flimsy grounds.”
The case is the latest in a series of examples where migrants or foreign criminals have used human rights laws to avoid deportation. Previous cases include an Albanian criminal who claimed his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets and a Pakistani paedophile who argued that deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his children.
Judge Pinder’s ruling has drawn attention to the challenges of balancing human rights protections with immigration enforcement. Critics argue that such decisions undermine efforts to control illegal migration, while supporters emphasize the importance of safeguarding individuals from harm.
The case also comes as the Labour government negotiates a new returns agreement with Iraq to expedite the deportation of illegal migrants, part of a broader strategy to combat people-smuggling networks.
The migrant in question lost contact with his family after being taken in by his uncle at age 10. Efforts to locate his uncle through the Red Cross and an Iranian friend were unsuccessful, leaving him without any means to prove his identity.
Judge Pinder noted that the Iraqi embassy’s assistance was insufficient to ensure he could obtain the necessary documents, making his return to Iraq unsafe.
This case underscores the complexities of immigration and human rights law, as well as the ongoing debate over how to handle illegal migration while upholding humanitarian principles.
As the UK continues to grapple with these issues, rulings like this one are likely to remain contentious, sparking further discussion about the balance between enforcement and compassion.
