A Pakistani man convicted of a criminal offence has won his fight to stay in Britain after an immigration tribunal ruled that deporting him would harm his 14-year-old daughter’s mental health.
The 51-year-old, referred to as IA and granted anonymity by the court, faced deportation after serving a three-year sentence for offences involving criminal property. The tribunal heard that his daughter, referred to as F, had been struggling with disrupted eating and sleeping over fears that her father would be removed from the UK.
Upper Tribunal Judge Joseph Neville ruled that deporting IA would be “unduly harsh” given the impact on his daughter.
The case comes amid Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s push for law changes that would limit the ability of foreign criminals and illegal migrants to use human rights claims to block deportation.
She is also working on plans to streamline immigration appeals, aiming to speed up removals and cut down on last-minute claims used to delay deportations.
IA arrived in the UK in 2000 at the age of 26 and has lived there lawfully for the past 13 years, with a wife and two daughters who hold UK citizenship. One daughter is now an adult; the younger, F, is 14.
He was convicted in 2021 over offences concerning criminal property and jailed for three years, a period, the tribunal said, that left his younger daughter traumatised. The conviction triggered automatic deportation proceedings, which IA then appealed.
A council social worker raised concerns to the tribunal about F’s wellbeing tied directly to the prospect of her father’s removal. A counsellor’s report described changes in F’s eating and sleeping habits, along with growing isolation and noted she had stopped attending school and withdrawn from friends, affecting her GCSE studies. The report also referenced thoughts F had shared about not wanting to continue, which the tribunal linked to her bond with her father and fear of losing him again after his time in prison.
The tribunal was told that F’s mother suffers from lupus, diabetes and a history of strokes, making IA his daughter’s primary carer both practically and emotionally.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services told the proceedings that removing IA would pose serious risks to F’s safety, since no alternative carer is available.
In his ruling, Judge Neville said that F’s difficulties were directly tied to her fear of losing her father and that her condition had worsened over the course of the proceedings. He said that IA’s removal would strip F not just of quality care, but of the person professionals had identified as meeting her daily needs. He concluded that deporting IA would leave F without a capable primary carer, making the impact of deportation on her unduly harsh.
