London, UK – A UK tribunal has blocked the deportation of a Pakistani national with a criminal record after hearing compelling psychological evidence that removal would severely harm the mental health of his eldest son.
The Upper Tribunal was informed by expert witnesses that the child—already suffering from heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and stress—would experience significant psychological deterioration if forced to relocate to Pakistan with his family.
According to a psychologist’s testimony, the boy’s mental health would likely suffer “profoundly” if he were removed from his established life in the UK. The child reportedly speaks limited Urdu, has no close family support in Pakistan, and would struggle to adapt to unfamiliar educational and cultural conditions—potentially leading to “increased feelings of isolation” and even self-harming behaviours.
Another UK-based psychiatrist reinforced these concerns, stating that the child’s condition would likely worsen if he were required to live in a country he does not want to reside in. The expert admitted unfamiliarity with Pakistan’s mental healthcare system but emphasised the serious risk to the boy’s well-being if uprooted from his current environment.
Home Office Objection Overruled
The Home Office had contested the appeal, arguing that it would be “extraordinary” to expect any deportation case not to cause emotional distress for a child. However, the tribunal disagreed.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Sarah Pinder of the Upper Tribunal said that the child’s best interests must remain a primary consideration, in accordance with UK immigration law and human rights obligations.
“I am satisfied that [AA] has demonstrated, through the submission of medical, expert, and country background evidence, that the health and needs of his eldest son in particular will be exacerbated upon any return to Pakistan,” Judge Pinder stated.
She added that expecting the child to accompany his father back to Pakistan would have a “profoundly detrimental impact” on his mental health. The disruption would not be merely “inconvenient or difficult,” but rather “unjustifiably severe,” meeting the legal threshold of being “unduly harsh.”
The case has sparked fresh debate around how immigration decisions should weigh the mental health and emotional needs of children involved in deportation proceedings. Human rights advocates have welcomed the ruling as a reminder that legal decisions must prioritise child welfare above administrative convenience.
Read Also:
UK immigration crackdown sparks industry alarm, family hardship
Student visas, skilled jobs targeted in immigration crackdown
Immigration: How Nigerian families can bring their partners, children to UK in 2025
