Analysis of recent judgments by immigration tribunals has revealed that the removal of some elderly migrants would breach their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Migrants are successfully claiming asylum based on the fact that they are pensioners and should see out their lives in Britain. There is no official data on the types of asylum claims, but a Home Office whistleblower has told The Telegraph that older people are set to be the next big source of claims.
In one case, a 61-year-old woman from China, who had previously been convicted of identity fraud, was granted asylum on the grounds that she was considered too old to be deported. A separate tribunal ruled that an 87-year-old widower from Syria could join his son in Britain because the level of care he needed was not available in his home country, where care homes are not a “cultural practice”.
In another case, a 71-year-old man from Pakistan Muhammad Ilyas Butt was allowed to remain in the UK after the court heard he was “lonely and isolated” and required the support of his son. The man suffers from heart disease, diabetes, angina, back pain, anxiety and depression, the court heard. First, the Home Office rejected his request because they found that he could access treatment in Pakistan. However, the pensioner appealed the decision, claiming he had evidence that proves he couldn’t access the healthcare required for his conditions.
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Ruddick said: “[Mr Butt] has no close family in Pakistan. He was widowed in 2016, and all of the expert reports describe him as lonely and isolated.
“A Senior Clinical Psychologist assessed [Mr Butt] over the course of four home visits.
“She described the [Mr Butt’s] declining mental health as directly linked to the loss of his wife in 2016 followed by the emigration of his children.
“I infer from this that [Mr Butt] had depended on his children for his emotional wellbeing prior to their departure and consider that this makes it more plausible that he continues to depend on them emotionally now.
“The evidence from the [Mr Butt’s] treating psychologist repeatedly refers to the [Mr Butt’s] emotional bond with his children, including the [son].
“It also documents a direct correlation between contact with his family and [Mr Butt’s] mental and physical health.
“[The psychologist] wrote that [Mr Butt] had lived with his children until they emigrated and that he ‘is always happier and confident when he is around his children’.”
The cases come against the backdrop of a record 111,000 asylum applications during this year to June and a sharp rise in appeals from those whose claims were initially refused by the Home Office. The number of appeals has more than doubled in just over a year, now exceeding 50,000.
However, not every case was accepted. An Argentinian grandmother, Maria Marletta, applied to move to Britain to live with her daughter, a naturalised British citizen. She claimed that she could not afford the treatment for her hypertension, cognitive impairment, hearing impairment, and chest pain in Argentina. But judge Anna-Rose Landes rejected her appeal under the right to family life provisions of the ECHR, ruling that other relatives could look after her.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is preparing to introduce a new asylum crackdown later this month. The measures are expected to limit migrants’ ability to rely on the ECHR when appealing against removal from the UK on the basis that it would breach their family life or put them at risk of persecution in their home country.