This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.
In most cases, real-life stories hit home harder in a way that numbers, important though they are, don’t. Take the case of Abdul Ezedi, who brutally attacked a woman and her kids in Clapham. The whole affair, from the moment it happened to confirmation that the body found in the Thames was that of Ezedi, is a glaring example of what’s wrong with our asylum system.
This Afghan had already been denied asylum twice and had a record for sex crimes. Yet, instead of being deported, he got a third shot at asylum. His new claim? He converted to Christianity and faced danger should he be returned to his home country.. As they used to say in the Eastenders of old, “yer ‘avin a larf.“ We only know the full story because there was a public outcry and demand for transparency, which resulted in the tribunal releasing details (through gritted teeth).
But this isn’t just about Ezedi. It’s about the increasing tendency of our courts’ not to make pertinent facts public. The increasing incidence of such cases, especially ones resulting from immigration offences, is extremely worrying. Why are immigration courts overturning so many Home Office decisions to refuse asylum?
We learned only this week following some excellent work by our friends at “The Centre for Immigration Control” that the success rate of appeals has shot up from 29% in 2010 to a staggering 51% in 2023. The lawyers say the immigration judges (they were simply known as adjudicators when the monster that is now the immigration and asylum appeals system was first introduced in the early 1070s) are just following the law. We would argue it is not a matter of following the law but more about interpretation of the law. For us, it is inconceivable that experienced Home Office officials, who are also following rules and guidance based on the law, including case law, are getting it wrong in 51% of decisions. Perhaps it is time that immigration judges held up a mirror and asked themselves the question, am I getting this wrong?
If the public are to trust the system they need to understand why so many asylum decisions are overturned. In Ezedi’s case, despite his lies, a judge bought his claim to have converted to Christianity after a Church of England priest vouched for him. He was allowed to stay on human rights grounds. Following his drowning in the Thames he was buried with Muslim rites.
Those who come here illegally, illegal immigrants by any other name, are committing a crime for which they should be tried and if convicted automatically deported. If only we had as much faith in this or any other UK government to put in place the right laws and the backbone to stand up for their own legislation and rules.
This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.