A Bangladeshi migrant who entered the United Kingdom illegally nearly three decades ago is still battling to remain in the country after winning a new legal reprieve in his long-running asylum case.
Munna Miah, a Bangladeshi national who says he arrived in Britain in 1998, has spent years challenging attempts to deport him. Now, after a fresh ruling by a senior immigration judge, his case will be heard again, extending one of the longest-running immigration disputes in recent memory.
The decision means Mr. Miah can continue his legal fight despite repeated attempts by the Home Office to remove him from the country.
According to court documents, Miah claimed he entered the UK “clandestinely” in 1998 after fleeing Bangladesh, where he said he feared persecution due to his political links with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the country’s main opposition group.
Read related news:
Home Office to handcuff migrant children during deportations
Illegal migrants turn to barbershops, delivery work
Rwanda sues UK over cancelled migrant deal
However, British authorities dispute his timeline. The Home Office says the first confirmed record of Miah in the UK was in 2010, when he was arrested by immigration officials.
Following his arrest, he was released but later failed to report to immigration authorities and was listed as an absconder.
In October 2012, Miah applied to remain in Britain on human rights grounds. The request was rejected the following year. He later filed an asylum application in 2017, claiming he would face danger if returned to Bangladesh.
That claim was also refused in 2019, with officials rejecting his assertion that he was politically persecuted.
Despite the rejection, Miah continued to pursue legal appeals, arguing that his long stay in Britain — now more than two decades — should allow him to remain in the country.
In April 2025, his case was reviewed again at the First-tier Tribunal, where evidence was presented by Miah, his wife and other family members.
The tribunal ultimately dismissed his claim on human rights grounds, stating that the evidence presented was vague and lacked sufficient detail.
But Miah appealed once more, arguing that the court had failed to properly assess witness testimony.
In a significant development, Ravinder Bagral ruled that the earlier judgment contained legal errors and did not adequately explain why key evidence had been rejected.
“The decision involved the making of one or more material errors of law,” Judge Bagral said, ordering that the ruling be set aside and the case reheard.
The latest decision means Miah’s immigration battle will continue, potentially prolonging a case that has already stretched across decades.
Meanwhile, the UK government is considering major reforms to immigration rules that could make the path to permanent residency significantly longer.
Under proposed changes from the Home Office, migrants and asylum seekers may have to wait up to 20 years before qualifying for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the status that allows foreign nationals to live in Britain permanently.
If the new policy is implemented, individuals like Miah could face even longer waits before securing legal residency.
The case has renewed debate over the efficiency of Britain’s immigration and asylum system, with critics arguing that lengthy legal battles place heavy burdens on courts, taxpayers and migrants alike.
For now, however, Munna Miah’s decades-long fight to remain in Britain is far from over, as he prepares for yet another hearing that will determine whether he can stay in the country he has called home for nearly 30 years.
