A Ghanaian woman who has lived in the United Kingdom illegally since 2000 has been granted the legal right to stay permanently, after a British immigration tribunal ruled that deporting her would violate her human rights and leave her destitute in a country she no longer recognizes.
Joyce Baidoo, 57, was initially ordered to be deported in 2007 after serving a 10-month prison sentence for fraud, which included the use of false identity documents. But for nearly two decades, she remained in the UK, evading removal and ultimately challenging her deportation in a case that has now drawn scrutiny over Britain’s evolving immigration policies.
The Court’s Ruling
This year, the UK’s First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber ruled in Baidoo’s favor, citing her deteriorating mental health, lack of family ties in Ghana, and absence of economic opportunity. The Upper Tribunal, the appeals court for immigration cases, upheld the decision following a challenge by the Home Office, which oversees immigration enforcement.
In his written ruling, Judge Richard Manuell rejected the government’s appeal, stating:
“It was not speculative of the judge to conclude that Ms. Baidoo would be destitute. He looked at various factors, including the absence of support and the period of absence, and reached conclusions that were properly reasoned.”
The court emphasized that deporting Baidoo after 25 years would lead to “unjustifiably harsh consequences,” given that she has no active family connections in Ghana, suffers from mental health issues, and is unlikely to reintegrate successfully into a society she left decades ago.
A Long and Controversial Journey
Baidoo arrived in the UK in 2000, and her presence in the country has been deemed unauthorized ever since. In 2007, the Home Office issued a deportation order following her fraud conviction. Despite this, she remained in the UK, living in legal limbo while raising her case through various channels of appeal.
In September 2021, Baidoo formally sought leave to remain under the UK’s human rights framework, arguing that she had established a “private life” in Britain that could not be uprooted. The court accepted her argument that returning to Ghana would likely result in destitution and psychological harm, given her advanced age, her husband’s death, and complete lack of contact with her children.
Home Office Argument Rejected
The UK government had contended that the lower tribunal erred in its reasoning, arguing the ruling failed to properly weigh the public interest in immigration enforcement. However, Judge Manuell disagreed, concluding that proportionality and reasonableness were fully addressed in the original ruling.
Judge Jeffrey Cameron, who presided over the first hearing, added that “the evidence before me does indicate that Ms. Baidoo on return to Ghana would not have any family support… Given her age and mental health problems, it is unlikely that she would be able to obtain employment within a reasonable period.”
Legal Precedent and Public Reaction
The ruling raises significant questions about immigration enforcement, human rights law, and the limits of state deportation power in cases of long-term undocumented residence. While some critics argue that the decision undermines the rule of law and emboldens illegal migration, others see it as a humane application of international norms and constitutional protections.
“It’s a case where legal principles clash with public sentiment,” said Dr. Martin Holloway, a UK-based immigration expert. “She committed a crime, yes, but also lived in the UK for 25 years without reoffending. The courts are saying: we can’t erase all that.”
Baidoo’s case underscores a growing tension in UK immigration policy, as the government pushes stricter removal measures while courts maintain protections for long-term undocumented residents under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life.
What’s Next for Baidoo?
While the ruling effectively grants her indefinite leave to remain, it is unclear what support she will receive from UK authorities going forward. Despite her legal victory, she remains without close family, employment, or access to public benefits.
The Home Office has not confirmed whether it will pursue further legal action, such as an appeal to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, though experts believe such a move is unlikely given the thoroughness of the tribunal’s decisions.
Baidoo’s victory, while deeply personal, ignites a broader conversation about immigration justice, integration, and the humane treatment of undocumented migrants. As the UK tightens borders post-Brexit, cases like hers test the nation’s legal and moral framework—and challenge society to reckon with what justice really means in an age of global movement.
“This wasn’t about condoning her past actions,” said one human rights advocate. “It was about deciding whether 25 years of life, hardship, and isolation still count for something. And the court said: they do.”
