After claiming asylum, immigration officials sought to deport a Somali refugee who racked up 8 criminal convictions, including raping 2 women. However, a judge has allowed him to stay in the country for a disturbing reason.
A 49-year-old Somali man arrived in Britain after claiming asylum status, allowing him to gain entry to the UK and all its glorious benefits. Unfortunately, the migrant would become far more of a threat to his host country than his own war-torn home posed to him.
The unnamed migrant profusely abused his asylum privilege by launching a series of crimes, accruing 8 convictions over the course of just 6 years. Among other crimes, the Somali was found guilty of robbery, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and raping 2 different women. The man had wielded a knife during one of the sexual assaults, earning him more than 7 years in jail before being transferred to an immigration detention center.
Of course, the string of serious offenses quickly landed him on the radar of immigration officials. Prison authorities described the migrant as “aggressive and unacceptable,” prompting Home Office to move forward with his deportation. However, before they could carry out the extradition, an immigration judge intervened.
According to the Daily Mail, the judge argued that mental healthcare in Somalia is “extremely poor” and, as such, it would be “degrading” to deport the rapist. The judge admitted that the migrant poses a “high risk of serious harm” to citizens, but argued that he would be in danger if he returned to Somalia.
An immigration judge accepted mental healthcare was “extremely poor” in Somalia “and that those with mental health issues, particularly those who are aggressive, were often stigmatised, considered ‘possessed’, and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment within both society and families, including stoning and chaining.”
Horrified by the immigration judge’s decision, Home Office filed an appeal to have the migrant deported. Disturbingly, an Upper Tribunal judge agreed with the initial ruling to allow the rapist to remain in the country.
Rejecting a Home Office appeal, Judge Judith Gleeson said, “The making of the previous decision involved the making of no error on a point of law.”
The Court of Appeal also garnered outrage for overturning a series of rulings against a radical activist group known as the “Stansted 15.” The group is notorious for intervening and obstructing legal immigration work.
The group had cut through a perimeter fence and impeded an airstrip, surrounding a Boeing 767 jet in an effort to stop the deportation of 60 migrants convicted for offenses including grievous bodily harm, murder, and child rape. The convicts were destined for Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone for repatriation.
Thousands had their flights delayed as it took airport security more than an hour to remove them before their arrests. The activists were convicted of terrorism, a conviction that was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the charge didn’t fulfill the requirements to be categorized as terrorism and was therefore made in error.
There is no report on how long the Somali rapist will remain in the immigration detention center. Furthermore, thanks to the legal system, the migrant has been awarded the privilege of having his identity protected, leaving locals unaware of the threat he poses.
The case highlights the danger in treating all asylum seekers as legitimate refugees. The vetting process has failed, and innocent citizens, as well as legal immigrants, are the ones paying the ultimate price.
