A man seeking refuge who sexually assaulted his stepdaughter will not be sent back to Africa in order to help his wife “emotionally” while she took care of their kids.
On the basis of human rights, the unnamed perpetrator was granted permission to remain in the UK, according to Mail Online.
Asylum seeker who s3xually attacked his stepdaughter won’t be sent back to Africa after winning the right to stay in the UK
It was ruled that if the man, originally from central Africa, was removed, his wife ‘would lose all emotional support’ and it would ‘negatively’ affect her children’s wellbeing.
The decision came more than three years after he was found guilty of the sexual assault of three young girls. He continues to deny the crimes.
The unidentified s3x offender arrived in the UK more than ten years ago and applied for asylum. His claim was rejected but he eventually obtained leave to remain on ‘human rights grounds’ because deporting him was deemed a ‘disproportionate interference’ in his right to a family life with his wife.
The Home Office ordered him out of the country after he had served time in prison for his crimes, but he successfully challenged the ruling.
The sex offender argued that he had a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ in Africa because of his political opinions and it would be ‘unduly harsh’ on the children for him to be removed from the UK.
The original hearing which decided he should be allowed to remain found he ‘continues to pose a risk’, tribunal paperwork said.
But the judge heard his wife was ‘struggling to control and manage’ the behaviour of one of her children while trying to offer support to her other children.
The ruling said the children missed him when he was in prison and their ’emotional needs’ would be better met by having him in their lives.
It said their mother would be assisted by the man if he were able to remain in the UK.
However, a fresh immigration hearing was ordered after the decision was appealed by the Home Office.
An Upper Tribunal judge ruled the decision must be revisited because of an ‘error in approach’, pointing out that ‘there is no mention of the welfare of the respondent’s stepdaughter – she is an integral part of the family unit that the respondent wishes to rejoin’.
