Albanian criminal escaped deportation because his lawyer argued that his son would not be able to get British chicken nuggets in his home country
An Albanian criminal facing deportation has successfully delayed his removal from the UK after his legal team argued that his 10-year-old son’s limited diet would make relocation unduly harsh.
Court documents revealed that the child’s reluctance to eat foreign chicken nuggets played a role in the immigration tribunal’s decision to allow the father to stay in Britain, citing his right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Food Preferences Used as Legal Defence
The immigration tribunal ruled that deporting 39-year-old Klevis Disha to Albania would pose significant hardship for his son, identified as C, due to the child’s “sensitivity around food.” His lawyers argued that he struggles with specific textures, including clothing and food, and would refuse to eat the “type of chicken nuggets available abroad.”
This argument contributed to the judge’s ruling that Disha’s deportation would be “unduly harsh,” allowing him to remain in the UK despite his criminal record.
A Case That Sparks Immigration Outrage
The ruling has sparked widespread public and political outrage, with critics arguing that the case exemplifies how UK immigration laws are being exploited.
“It’s ludicrous that a judge would even entertain this argument,” said Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary. “Cases like this make us a laughingstock. It’s an insult to the British public that our immigration laws are being abused in such an outrageous way.”
Similarly, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp stated: “This case shows how bogus asylum seekers and foreign criminals ruthlessly exploit human rights laws and weak judges to stay in the UK when common sense clearly shows they should be removed.”
Criminal History and Legal Challenges
Disha, who entered the UK illegally as a 15-year-old unaccompanied minor in 2001, initially lied about his identity, falsely claiming to be from the former Yugoslavia. Though his asylum claim was denied, he later secured UK citizenship in 2007 after being granted indefinite leave to remain.
His troubles escalated in 2017 when he was convicted of possessing £250,000 in illicit cash—proceeds of crime. He was sentenced to two years in prison, leading to then-Home Secretary Priti Patel ordering his deportation and revocation of UK citizenship.
However, Disha appealed the deportation, and a lower immigration tribunal judge ruled in his favor, arguing that his deportation would severely impact his son’s well-being.
Despite the tribunal’s ruling, Judge David Merrigan of the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the lower court’s assessment. He ruled that C’s refusal to eat certain types of food did not constitute an extreme hardship justifying Disha’s right to stay.
“We are not persuaded that the addition of this sole example approaches anywhere near the level of harshness required to justify such a decision,” Judge Merrigan stated.
As a result, the case has been remitted to a new judge for reconsideration. The tribunal will now re-examine whether deportation would, in fact, be “unduly harsh” on the child.
Political Backlash and Immigration Crackdown
The case comes at a time when both the Labour and Conservative parties are under pressure from Reform UK, which has been gaining political momentum with its tough stance on immigration.
In an effort to counter claims that Britain is soft on illegal immigration, the UK government recently launched an aggressive crackdown on illegal workers, leading to:
- 609 arrests last month (a 73% increase from January 2024).
- A 48% increase in immigration raids from 556 to 828 within the same period.
- Increased deportations, with the Home Office confirming that 2,580 foreign criminals have been removed since the last election, a 23% increase compared to the previous year.
Additionally, the Home Office announced plans to publicly release footage of migrants being deported from the UK to counteract perceptions that the country is an easy destination for asylum seekers.
Future of UK’s Immigration Laws
The UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to the ECHR, despite calls from right-wing politicians to withdraw from the treaty to allow for stricter deportation policies.
Legal experts argue that leaving the ECHR would have serious implications for international agreements, including the Good Friday Agreement, which is legally bound by human rights commitments.
As of February 2025, the debate over the UK’s immigration laws and the role of the ECHR continues to intensify, with cases like Disha’s fueling calls for urgent legal reforms.
The decision to allow a convicted criminal to stay in the UK over his son’s picky eating habits has intensified public outrage, political scrutiny, and demands for stricter immigration policies.
As the case remains under judicial review, the outcome could set a precedent for how human rights laws are interpreted in future deportation cases.
Read Also: UK health minister, Gwynne sacked over vile WhatsApp chat
