A Congolese drug dealer has been allowed to stay in Britain after a string of offences because his son has a rare blood disease.
The convicted criminal – who is currently in prison – won his legal fight to remain in the UK as his son has haemophilia.
The British asylum court dismissed the Home Office‘s attempts to deport him, ruling it would be ‘unduly harsh’ on his son.
Despite being in prison for dealing class A drugs, it was found he plays a ‘crucial’ role in bringing up his son and caring for his complex medical needs.
The Home Office argued his son’s health condition was not an ‘adequate reason’ for preventing the man from being returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The asylum court ruled there were ‘very particular circumstances of this case’ and found in the Congolese man’s favour.
The drug dealer, in his 30s, has been granted anonymity so his identity cannot be reported.
The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal was told he entered Britain in 1999 aged seven and was granted leave to remain.
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in London where the hearing took place
In 2011, he received seven convictions for 16 offences.
He faced a deportation order at the time but in 2016 the asylum court quashed it as it would be unfair on his partner and their young child due to his haemophilia.
In 2023 the Congolese man was convicted of possession of class A drugs with intent to supply and was sentenced to 38 months in jail.
As a result, the Home Office reignited its bid to deport him.
It was heard his eldest son has a ‘severe medical condition’.
Haemophilia is a rare condition that affects how the blood clots and causes increased bleeding.
The boy receives weekly injections given by his parents directly into his veins, needs regular medical appointments, and attends hospital regularly.
His other child has also been diagnosed as being a symptomatic carrier of haemophilia B.
The Home Office’s Lunar House immigration reporting centre in May 2024 in Croydon, London
The Congolese man successfully appealed the deportation order at a tribunal hearing last year, but the Home Office appealed that decision at the Upper Tribunal.
Outlining the Home Office’s argument, the tribunal judgement said: ‘The [Home Office] submits the [tribunal] has failed to provide adequate reasons and/or made a material misdirection of law…
‘[The Home Office argues] The [Congolese man’s] two children both remain under the care of their mother (his partner) and her own statement shows she has the full support from family and friends to help her cope during [his] incarceration.
‘It is not disputed [he] was incarcerated and, as such, any involvement he may have with his children remains severely limited.
‘[His] relationship with his partner and children remains interrupted by his ongoing incarceration and his contact with both children is severely limited.
‘Further, the [Home Office] maintains there is little evidence to support the claim [he] has been able to exert a positive influence on either child from prison.’
Last year’s tribunal found that it would be too harsh on the child to deport his father.
It was found: ‘The weight of the evidence was that there was a good, stable and ongoing relationship between him and the children’.
UK Border Control at Heathrow airport. The Congoleser man will not now be flown out of the country when he finishes his latest jail sentence.
‘He had been there full-time carer prior to the recent sentence and played a very active role in their daily lives.’
‘[He had] a strong relationship with the children, and it was in their best interests to have [him] living with them and resuming his caring duties.’
He ‘played a crucial role in the children’s lives particularly the eldest child who had special medical needs; taking care of the school transport, medical appointments and other daily activities and dealt with the medical emergencies and hospital stays’, it was also found.
At the latest hearing, the Upper Tribunal found there had not been any mistakes in law with last year’s ruling and dismissed the Home Office’s appeal.
It is the latest controversial decision by the court which has allowed a number of asylum seekers and foreign criminals to stay in the country.
In March an Iraqi asylum seeker was allowed to stay in the UK after an immigration judge appeared to confuse his home country with Iran, a tribunal heard.
The unnamed man won his case after Judge Helena Suffield-Thompson delivered a ruling based on guidance that related to Iran and Turkey.
Judge Suffield-Thompson was assessing the potential risks if the asylum seeker was deported back to Iraq.
A tribunal heard he had made anti-Iraq government posts on his public Facebook account and argued he would be subject to persecution on his return.
At the hearing Judge Suffield-Thompson found in his favour, noting the ‘sophisticated’ capability of the authorities to monitor the social media accounts of political opponents.
But, a new tribunal has since found that she ‘erred in law’ as the apparent ‘risks’ to the asylum seeker were based on an assessment of Iran instead of Iraq – which carries out no such surveillance.
Now, the entire asylum case will have to start again, because the latest tribunal ordered it to be reheard.
In another case last month an asylum seeker could be allowed to stay in the UK after a judge’s ruling against the ‘purely fictitious’ claim he was trafficked from Albania was overturned.
The 24-year-old asylum seeker sought refuge in the UK after claiming he was a victim of drug trafficking and at risk of attack from the family of a woman who had an affair with his father.
Last year, first tier Tribunal judge Jean-Gilles Raymond dismissed his asylum claim, accusing him of making up that he was a victim of trafficking.
But now, the Upper Tier Tribunal, has said the man can have his case reheard – meaning he may be allowed to stay in Britain.
In November last year the First Tier Tribunal Judge Raymond heard and then dismissed his case.
But now his case is being reheard after Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Owens and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sara Anzani said it was ‘irrational’ for the First Tier Tribunal judge to accuse the asylum seeker of lying.
In 2023 the Home Secretary rejected his human rights claim stating he would not ‘face a risk of re-trafficking or persecution in Albania’.
Another immigration tribunal decided that Pakistani national Muhammad Arshad should be allowed to remain in Britain on human rights grounds.
The 43-year-old immigration offender has been living in this country without permission for 16 years – and working illegally as a butcher.
But the case went all the way to the Court of Appeal after a series of legal challenges by the Home Office and Mr Arshad’s legal team.
Now the senior court has condemned the original decision by immigration tribunal judge Helena Suffield-Thompson, ruling that it even treated Mr Arshad’s breach of border rules as ‘mitigating factors’.
In an unusually strongly-worded criticism of Judge Suffield-Thompson’s ruling, Lord Justice Underhill said the first-tier tribunal had given a ‘euphemistic and inadequate account’ of Mr Arshad’s circumstances.
The Court of Appeal judge said: ‘The first-tier tribunal obscured the fact that Mr Arshad has been here illegally since January 2009 by saying that his immigration history “is not ideal but it is not the worst by any means”.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick called for action against ‘activist judges’ as he expressed concern over the latest ruling in the case of Pakistani national Muhammad Arshad
‘The [tribunal] did not use the words ‘unlawful’ or ‘illegal’ at all, except when it referred to the fact that Mr Arshad had worked even though he had no permission to.
‘Indeed, it seems to have treated the consequences of Mr Arshad’s overstaying as mitigating factors.’
The senior judge said he was ‘troubled’ by the way Judge Suffield-Thompson’s ruling ‘downplays the facts’ over Mr Arshad’s time as a visa overstayer in the UK, and concluded its approach was ‘unlawful’.
Mr Arshad’s legal team originally won their case by arguing their client had the right to ‘private and family life’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
They said it would be unfair to deport him because it would harm his relationship with his UK-based sister and her children, describing him as their ‘third parent’.
However, lawyers for the Home Secretary argued ‘that there is no such thing as a “third parent”,’ court documents reveal.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: ‘This is the latest example in a long list of cases where immigration judges are failing to apply the law properly.
‘There has to be consequences for these activist judges that display such flagrant open-borders activism.
‘Our legal system needs fundamental reform. Yes, the ECHR is a huge obstacle to border enforcement, but this case highlights how activist British judges are also a huge problem.’
