A WOMAN who tried and failed eight times to get asylum has been granted the right to stay in the UK after joining a terror group to boost her claim.
Upper tribunal judge Gemma Loughran who gave the 49-year-old Nigerian the right to stay, acknowledged she was being dishonest about her political beliefs.
The Nigerian woman failed in eight separate appeals (stock image)[/caption]
Sir Keir Starmer at PMQs yesterday[/caption]
The Home Office sign outside their building in Whitehall[/caption]
The judge said she became involved with the Indigenous People of Biafra (IOPB) only “in order to create a claim for asylum”.
The woman came to the UK in 2011 and joined the separatist group in 2017, reports The Daily Telegraph, which has seen court documents relating to the case.
IOPB has been blamed for acts of violence against the Nigerian state, where it has been banned as a terrorist organisation – but it’s not proscribed in Britain.
Ms Loughran said the asylum seeker’s involvement with the group meant she had a “well-founded fear of persecution” under human rights laws.
The woman had submitted multiple appeals after her right to remain in the UK was rejected over a 10-year period – this included claims she was a trafficking victim.
PAEDO AVOIDS DEPORTATION
It comes after a paedophile dad jailed for child sex offences escaped deportation to Pakistan after a UK judge ruled it would be “unduly harsh” on his two toddlers.
The unnamed father, who was granted anonymity by an immigration court, had been banned from living with his kids after attempting to solicit three “barely pubescent” girls for sex.
He was jailed for 18 months. A lower tribunal judge, however, ruled he should not be deported back to his homeland due to the impact on his own children.
The Home Office has appealed against the decision made under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Meanwhile, the topic of asylum seekers dominated Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, with Sir Keir Starmer vowing to close a “legal loophole” that enabled a Gaza family to remain in the country.
The Home Office had rejected their appeal to stay with their brother, who lives in the UK, after they submitted it through the Ukraine Family Scheme.
It was denied by lower-tier immigration judge Joanne Oxlade because the family were not from Ukraine.
But, higher-tier judge Hugo Norton-Taylor ruled this was a breach of the family’s human rights – despite being warned against it by the Home Office.
He said the family were in an “extreme and life threatening” situation which outweighed the “public interest”.
The PM declared “it should be the Government that makes policy” after a judge ruled the six Palestinians could stay in the country using a refugee scheme established for Ukrainians.
At a packed out PMQs Sir Keir said: “I do not agree with the decision.
“It’s the wrong decision.”
The PM added: “Let me be clear, it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration.
“It should be the Government that makes the policy, that is the principle, and the Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case.”
Sir Keir humiliated Kemi Badenoch as he pointed out that the decision was taken under the previous Tory government.
Responding to demands from Ms Badenoch to slam the ruling, the PM replied: “She hasn’t quite done her homework, because the decision in question was taken under the last government according to the legal framework for the last government.”
Grilling Sir Keir on the issue, the Tory leader declared Britain cannot “allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws”.
She said: “There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations.
“We cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here.”
Politicians expressed outrage today after it emerged a mother, father and their four children could stay in the UK using the Ukraine Family Scheme.
An initial application by the family was refused by the Home Office in May last year.
But in September an immigration tribunal ruled in favour of the Gazans, who claimed under the European Court of Human Rights that they had a “right to a family life” with the father’s brother, who is a UK citizen.
The Home Office insisted it contested the claim “vigorously”.
