Great moments in immigration law (UK division)

An immigration judge has ruled that the British government cannot deport convicted drug dealer Hesham Ali, who has never been in the country legally, because he has a girlfriend and making him leave would therefore violate his “right to family life” under the Human Rights Act [Telegraph]:

He convinced a judge he had a “family life” which had to be respected because he had a “genuine” relationship with a British woman – despite already having two children by different women with whom he now has no contact.

Ali also mounted an extraordinary claim that his life would be in danger in his native Iraq because he was covered in tattoos, including a half-naked Western woman – a claim which was only dismissed after exhaustive legal examination.

Meanwhile, Ted Frank argues that the case of the Tsarnaev family points up the longstanding problem of dubious or fraudulent asylum claims [Point of Law]


  • Sending criminals to prison also interferes with their family life but doing so is not a violation of their human rights.

  • The argument that the man’s tattoos would expose him to persecution because he has to expose his body in preparation for prayers seems bogus to me. Wudu normally involves the washing of the face and head, lower arms and hands, and lower legs and feet; the torso is not washed and need not be exposed to view. Tattoos on the body would therefore not be made visible.

  • If Britain’s Tory party should get sucked dry by the anti-European-Union (EU) “UK Independence Party,” judicial arrogance like this, egged on and abetted by EU “human rights law,” will be the principal reason.
    Even convicted terrorists are shielded from deportation:

    This would be a point in favor of the “unwritten” status of Britain’s constitution: needed reforms (as well as unneeded ones) can be imposed by a simple majority of Parliament.