An illegal migrant who spent over two decades frustrating attempts to deport him is not entitled to remain here, the UK’s highest court has ruled.
The Belarussian man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, entered the UK illegally in 1998 and has been fighting deportation ever since.
Even though he racked up a string of criminal convictions, including actual bodily harm and false imprisonment, the Home Office has been unable to deport the man after he repeatedly lied to Belarus government officials over his identity.
The Supreme Court has now ruled the Home Office was right not to grant him leave to remain .
The Belarussian man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, entered the UK illegally in 1998 and has been fighting deportation ever since. Pictured: The Supreme Court
Even though he racked up a string of criminal convictions, including actual bodily harm and false imprisonment, the Home Office has been unable to deport the man after he repeatedly lied to Belarus government officials over his identity
The man, identified only as ‘AM’, had claimed his human rights were being breached. Since he was unlikely to be removed to Belarus, he argued, the refusal to grant him leave to remain violated his right to a private and family life.
Both the Immigration Tribunal’s upper chamber and the Court of Appeal ruled in AM’s favour until the Home Office lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The case – believed to be the longest one of its type in UK legal history – was heard by five justices of the court in December last year.
The proceedings have been going on for more than half of AM’s life – he was just 21 when he arrived in the UK and is thought to be 47 years old.
Questions still remain as to whether the Home Office will now be able to deport AM.
In his ruling, Lord Sales said the Home Secretary ‘was plainly entitled to decide that he should be removed’.
Lord Sales said: ‘Even if AM had not been a foreign criminal, the factors pointing in favour of his removal would have been overwhelming.
‘He is an illegal immigrant with no family life and minimal private life to which little weight is to be attached.
‘The Secretary of State was plainly entitled to decide that he should be removed, and that decision involved no violation of article 8 [right to private and family life].
‘The public interest in AM’s deportation is very strong.’
The Home Office was contacted for comment.