A Nigerian migrant wins UK asylum after joining IPOB, despite a judge admitting her claims were false. Case sparks debate over UK immigration laws and reforms.
A UK Judge Grants Asylum Despite Acknowledging Deception. A Nigerian migrant, who had unsuccessfully sought asylum in the UK eight times, was ultimately granted the right to stay after joining the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a group classified as a terrorist organization in Nigeria but not proscribed in the UK.
The ruling judge, Gemma Loughran, admitted that the 49-year-old woman’s political beliefs were not genuine and that her involvement with IPOB was solely to strengthen her asylum claim.
The woman arrived in the UK in 2011 and joined IPOB in 2017. IPOB, a separatist movement, has been linked to violent clashes with Nigerian authorities, leading to its designation as a terrorist organization by the Nigerian government. However, the UK has not classified IPOB as a terrorist entity.
Judge Loughran ruled that, despite her dishonest motives, the woman’s IPOB activities meant she had a “well-founded fear of persecution” under human rights laws due to her “imputed political opinion.”
UK Immigration System Under Scrutiny
The case is the latest example of migrants using human rights laws to overturn deportation orders or obtain legal residence in the UK.
Other controversial cases exposed by New Daily Prime include:
- An Albanian criminal who avoided deportation after claiming his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets.
- A Pakistani pedophile, convicted of child sex offenses, who was allowed to remain in the UK as deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his children.
The growing number of such cases has fueled concerns that UK immigration laws are being manipulated.
Starmer stated that Parliament, not judges, should set immigration rules and vowed that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper would work on closing legal loopholes.
Meanwhile, Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, labeled the Nigerian asylum case as “patently absurd”, stating:
“This shows judges are inventing new and comically ludicrous interpretations of vague European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) articles to allow foreign criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in the country.”
Philp further argued:
“It is clear to me that a radical overhaul of human rights law is needed to end this abuse by the judiciary, who have taken for themselves what amounts to legislative powers.”
Manipulation of Asylum Claims?
The case highlights a growing concern over migrants manipulating asylum claims by adopting new religious or political affiliations. Similar tactics have included converting to Christianity or falsely claiming persecution due to sexual orientation.
In the Nigerian woman’s case, she made eight unsuccessful asylum appeals between 2011 and 2021, using claims under ECHR Article 8 (Right to Family Life) and alleging she was a victim of trafficking. All were rejected.
However, in her ninth appeal, she argued that her IPOB membership and participation in protests made her a target for persecution. She was supported by IPOB’s UK-based medical director, who verified her involvement in protests, rallies, and campaigns.
She also claimed that protesters at the Nigerian High Commission were photographed and could be identified via CCTV surveillance.
She further argued that if deported, she faced immediate arrest and possible disappearance, as Nigeria’s anti-terror laws permit indefinite detention of IPOB members.
Judicial Ruling & Legal Implications
Initially, Lower Tribunal Judge Iain Burnett rejected her asylum claim, citing a lack of evidence regarding her protest activities. He found that she had only joined IPOB to fabricate an asylum claim.
However, Upper Tribunal Judge Loughran overturned the ruling, despite agreeing that her IPOB involvement was not a reflection of genuine political beliefs.
Judge Loughran ruled that:
“There is a reasonable likelihood that the Nigerian woman has been identified as an IPOB activist by the country’s security services and would be targeted upon her return.”
She further cited reports of arbitrary arrests, detentions, and violence against suspected IPOB members, stating:
“It is clear from country background evidence that the security services act arbitrarily and arrest, harm, and detain those it believes may be involved with IPOB without assessing their level of involvement or motivation.”
Based on this reasoning, the woman’s asylum appeal was granted on the grounds of ‘imputed political opinion’.
Read Also:UK, other European countries suspend Syrians’ asylum applications
Read Also:UK govt targets student visa abuse: New immigration rules coming soon
