A SCOTS lawyer has accused the Home Office of “lying” over the case of a Namibian asylum seeker who has been threatened with removal in spite of a Court of Session petition that effectively halts such a move.
Isabella Katjiparatijivi was detained at the immigration removal centre at Dungavel when she went for her regular report to the Home Office.
Last night her lawyer, Usman Aslam, told The National: “I do wonder where human integrity has gone.”
The 29-year-old had sought asylum when she arrived in Glasgow in October 2017, saying she faced persecution in Namibia because of her sexuality. A court rejected her case last year and refused her leave to appeal to the higher tribunals.
The Home Office sent the ruling to Katjiparatijivi, who received it on January 3, five days before she was detained. The immigration team at McGlashan MacKay in Glasgow told her she had three months to mount a challenge through a judicial review and set that in motion.
The National revealed Katjiparatijivi’s story on Saturday and were contacted by the Home Office who denied elements of it.
They claimed: “We have not made any new removal directions or orders since Ms Katjiparatijivi submitted a judicial review to the Court of Session yesterday ... There are no orders to remove Ms Katjiparatijivi on today’s date, the 19th of January.”
However, we have seen the removal directions from National Removal Commands in Birmingham, dated January 18, which say Katjiparatijivi will be sent back to Namibia in four days’ time.
Aslam previously described the Home Office as being disingenuous, but on Sunday he was more forthright, accusing them of lying: “It is one thing saying ‘we have this position’ or ‘we have that position’. In the world of litigation that is what happens.
“It is another thing when you are looking at someone or speaking to someone and blatantly lying.
“All this time that they are responding to The National and all the energy they’re putting in trying to refute this, they have yet to respond to a single one of my letters. So why don’t they put that energy into responding to us?
“They are saying there’s no removal directions – the document shows removal directions.
“I honestly don’t know what to make of it. I would almost respect them if they said, ‘yes this is what’s happened, we’re maintaining our position and if they want to challenge it they can’. But what they have responded with is simply wrong – it is a lie. So until they can forward a document that says, ‘we have cancelled the removal directions of January 18’, that is Friday, they are lying.”
Aslam added: “Whilst this is going on there is something more important here and that is there is a petrified asylum seeker who is still in detention who has an outstanding case at the Court of Session.”
READ MORE: Home Office bids to send asylum seeker home despite application to Scots court
The lawyer said he had spoken to Katjiparatijivi on Friday, telling her not to worry and advising her not to get into any vehicle or aircraft because the judicial review is outstanding.
“Until that is concluded the Home Office cannot by operation of the law remove her – it’s as simple as that.”
SNP MP for Glasgow South West, Chris Stephens, has also taken up Katjiparatijivi’s case.
He told The National: “This is a case with all the hallmarks of the ‘hostile environment’ dictating Home Office policy. Detention should be viewed as the very last resort, instead in this case, the Home Office has used the measure at the very first step.
“It is clear that the well-being of Isabella Katjiparatijivi has been put at risk as a result of the shambolic handling of the case and errors made by the Home Office.
“I will continue to work with Isabella in ensuring that the UK Government does the right thing and grants her immediate release.”
The Home Office had not responded to The National’s request for comment by the time we went to press.
Meanwhile, two online petitions have been launched to stop the Home Office forcing Mozaffar Saberi, 83, and his 73-year-old wife Rezvan Habibimarand to return to Iran from their Edinburgh home, separating them from their four British-born children, 11 grandchildren and a great-grandchild.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel