by A convicted Pakistani criminal can remain in Great Britain after a judge decided that his deportation would damage his son’s mental health.
The father of two children has been imprisoned for more than two years because he held false identity documents after 18 years in Great Britain.
The Ministry of the Interior decided to deport him, but he successfully appealed as part of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) and argues that his son could not receive the same mental support in his home country.
The court was informed that the mental health of his 14-year-old son had deteriorated in prison during his father and should only get worse.
The case announced in court files is the latest example that was uncovered by the Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals remained in Great Britain or hired their removal.
The ministers propose to increase the threshold in order to make it difficult for the judges to grant the right to remain on Article 8 of the ECHR that protects the right to family life, and on Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or humiliating treatment or punishment.
The 56-year-old Pakistani citizen, who entered Great Britain in 2007, is married and has two children aged 14 and 10.
His wife suffers from depression and undergoes therapy due to chronic low mood, high level of fear and symptoms of post -traumatic stress disorders.
In February 2020, he was convicted of possessing false identity documents and sentenced to 28 months in prison.
The Ministry of the Interior decided to deport him, but he started legal steps in which he claimed that the move was “excessively hard” in his family.
The judge of the lower animal tribunal accepted that the man, who is only known as AA, was really ruister and had a little risk of insulting again, but had rejected his claim. Then he made an appeal against the decision.
However, the upper tribunal was informed by a psychologist that his oldest child was vulnerable and that his father’s deportation would be “significantly influenced”. It was likely that his “extremely increased level of fear, depression and stress”.
“If the child is forced to leave Great Britain with his family, the adverse effects on his mental health would probably be profound,” the psychologist told the Tribunal.
“He has a lack of family support in Pakistan, speaks limited Urdu and there are difficulties with which he is exposed to another pedagogical and cultural environment and the lack of his established support network, which leads to increased isolation feelings, which could trigger self -confident behavior.”
Interests of the children “primary consideration”
Another psychologist added: “Although I am not familiar with the conditions in Pakistan for children as a psychiatrist in Great Britain, I would assume that his mental health would deteriorate if she removed from Great Britain and lived in a country in which he does not want to live.”
The Ministry of the Interior argued that it would be “unusual to imagine that there is a scenario in a deportation in which a child does not feel disappointed, from the prospect that his family is leaving the United Kingdom”.
Judge Sarah Pinder, who was sitting on the upper tribunal, decided in favor of the criminal.
“I have to take into account the children’s interests as the primary consideration,” she said.
“I am satisfied [AA] Through the submission of medical, expert and countries – backgrounds, has shown that the health and needs of his eldest son are tightened in particular on every return to Pakistan.
“The expectation of the oldest child to accompany the complainant to Pakistan has a deeply disadvantageous influence on his mental health.
“With the oldest needs of the child, I do not believe that moving to Pakistan would only be uncomfortable, uncomfortable, undesirable or difficult for him. Rather, I am satisfied that such a step would be wrongly serious and would fulfill the threshold of” excess hardness “.”
