AS The National has frequently reported, Scotland’s robust courts have effectively challenged the ‘hostile environment’ to immigrants introduced by former Prime Minister Theresa May when she was Home Secretary in the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government.
In the latest cases to come before the Court of Session, Scotland’s top civil court, a Nigerian man and a woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) both won their appeals against decisions that could have led to their deportation.
READ MORE: Hundreds gather for Radical Independence Campaign conference
Both cases were similar in that Scottish judge Lord Arthurson found against the immigration tribunals themselves rather than the Home Office which initiated the process of removing the two Africans.
In what is an embarrassment to the immigration system, Lord Arthurson concluded that the tribunals had erred in law, saying so in judgements issued last week.
In the case of Tara Kazadi Mbuyi-Biuma, 37, originally from the D RC, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had refused to grant permission to appeal against itself over her claim for asylum which the Tribunal had refused to grant.
Tara Kazadi Mbuyi-Biuma (the petitioner) had supplied the tribunal with documents from a barrister in DRC who had obtained a so-called All Ports Warning issued by the country’s security national agency back in 2016.
Her case was that as a member of the National Union for Federalist Democrats (UNDEF) which was then in opposition to Joseph Kabila’s dictatorship, she would be at risk of harm if returned to her homeland. Kabila stepped down in January of this year but his associates still control large parts of the country.
READ MORE: FM 'horrified' that asylum seeker lock-change evictions were found lawful
Lord Arthurson noted that it was not an issue that refusal of her asylum claim would mean “that her political activities for the UNDEF party would place her at real risk in the event of her return to the DRC.”
According to lawyers for the petitioner the Tribunal had made “adverse credibility findings” about the documents supplied by the barrister, but there had been “no attempt by the decision-maker to undertake a verification exercise.”
Counsel for the Tribunal argued before the court “that it was for an individual claimant to show that a document which was sought to be relied upon was indeed reliable.” Lord Arthurson concluded the Tribunal had erred in law and ruled that the Tribunal decision should be set aside, stating: “In terms of the veracity of the material, I have reached the view that all of the evidence, including the documentary evidence, ought properly to have been considered in its entirety in this case.”
In the second case, Arinze Nwokolo of Nigeria had appealed against an Immigration Tribunal decision to re-consider his right to remain in the UK where he has lived since 2006.
He had applied in 2017 for indefinite leave to remain – usually automatic after ten years residency – but this was refused by the Upper Tier Tribunal last year on grounds that there had been “a discrepancy” between the evidence he had submitted about his income and his tax returns, implying dishonesty.
The discrepancy had arisen because Nwokolo’s business accounts were prepared on a calendar year rather that tax year basis, and a chartered accountant’s forensic examination of those accounts were put to the Upper Tier showing no material discrepancy which Lord Arthurson stated: “has not been a matter apparently even engaged in, let alone grappled with, by the Upper Tribunal.”
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 here