A Nigerian man with a long history of failed asylum claims and a conviction for violent disorder has won the right to remain in the UK after judges accepted he would face persecution for being gay if returned to his home country.
The man, whose identity has been protected by the courts, first arrived in Britain in 1983. Over the course of more than four decades he has repeatedly sought to secure legal status, advancing claims on the basis of political persecution, marriage, and later family life. Each of these earlier attempts was rejected by the Home Office.
In 2003 he was jailed for four years following a conviction for violent disorder. His sentence led the government to issue a deportation order, and for several years he appeared to have exhausted all avenues for appeal. However, in 2015 he submitted a fresh claim on the grounds of sexuality, arguing that he had been in a three-year relationship with a man and would be at risk of imprisonment and violence if returned to Nigeria, where same-sex relationships remain criminalised.
Judges accept “well-founded fear of persecution”
At a final appeal hearing, immigration judges accepted that claim, ruling they were “satisfied to the lower standard” that he was gay and would face a “real risk of persecution” in Nigeria.
“Accordingly, the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution and he therefore qualifies for protection under the Refugee Convention,” the tribunal concluded.
The court also found that deporting him would breach his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibit torture and inhuman treatment and protect the right to family life.
A chequered immigration history
Court documents reveal the man first attempted to secure leave to remain by claiming he would face political persecution in Nigeria. When this failed, he argued that his marriage to a Portuguese woman should allow him to stay, before later relying on the birth of a son in 2001.
Judges noted that he had made “numerous unsuccessful attempts to regularise his stay in the UK” and therefore had a “clear motivation” to use all available arguments, including sexuality, to prevent deportation.
However, they stopped short of rejecting his claim on those grounds alone. Instead, they found his evidence to be “plausible and internally consistent,” pointing to communications from his family between 2010 and 2013 urging him to end a same-sex relationship and threatening to report him to the Nigerian authorities.
Nigeria’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws
Nigeria enforces some of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world. Same-sex activity can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years, while the Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act of 2014 also criminalises public displays of affection and membership of LGBTQ+ organisations.
Human rights groups have consistently documented harassment, arbitrary arrest and violence against LGBTQ+ people in Nigeria. The judges concluded that deportation would therefore expose the man to serious harm.
Political tensions over asylum and human rights
The ruling comes at a time when the government is seeking to tighten immigration rules and restrict the use of human rights legislation to prevent deportations. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has signalled her intention to review the use of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR in asylum and deportation cases, amid concern that a growing proportion of foreign nationals — including those with criminal records — are successfully appealing removal orders.
A Whitehall source said ministers are “deeply concerned” that nearly one-third of deportation cases are now being overturned on “exceptional” human rights grounds. Cooper has proposed measures to narrow judges’ discretion in such cases, though critics argue this risks undermining international obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Balancing control and compassion
Campaigners insist protections must remain in place for vulnerable groups. “Whatever someone’s immigration history, if they are at risk of imprisonment or abuse because of their sexuality, the UK has a legal and moral duty to protect them,” said a spokesperson for a leading LGBTQ+ rights charity.
The case underscores the ongoing tension between government policy, which seeks to demonstrate tougher immigration enforcement, and Britain’s obligations under international law.
As one tribunal judge observed, the ruling highlights the “difficult balance between immigration control and the duty to safeguard those at genuine risk of persecution.” For the appellant, decades of legal battles have ended in protection; for ministers, the case adds fuel to an already heated debate over the role of human rights in Britain’s asylum system.
Read Also:
UK to deport 15 national offenders before hearing human rights appeals
EHRC warns against heavy-handed policing of Gaza protests
Home Office partners Deliveroo to curb illegal migrant labour
