Authorities nonetheless cannot agree on nationality of asylum seeker who entered UK almost 20 years in the past as he wins deportation reprieve

British authorities still cannot agree on the nationality of a migrant who entered the UK nearly 20 years ago. 

But despite this the Muslim man, named only ‘MS’ at the tribunal, has won a reprieve against being deported.   

He entered the UK using a fake passport in 2008 and claimed asylum in 2015, the immigration court heard.  

The man argues that he is a Rohingya Muslim from Myanmar – but the Home Office does not accept his claims surrounding his nationality. 

Eighteen years on from his arrival, authorities still can’t decide whether he actually comes from Bangladesh or Myanmar. 

After a series of immigration hearings, he has now won an appeal at the immigration court against deportation.  

The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard that the man claimed to be a Rohingya Muslim from Myanmar. 

The Rohingya people are a stateless group indigenous to western Myanmar. 

The man in question argues that he is a Rohingya Muslim from Myanmar (pictured) – but the Home Office does not accept his claims 

Judges at the Upper Tribunal can’t agree on whether the asylum seeker is actually from Bangladesh (pictured), where many Muslims from Myanmar fled after the 2017 genocide on the country’s Rohingya Muslim population 

But the man has been granted the right to appeal by the Upper Tribunal due to ‘misapplied principles’ by the judge and him overlooking certain documentation

Before the 2017 genocide, around 1.4million Rohingya lived in Myanmar – yet over 700,000 fled to Bangladesh following the persecution which saw 24,000 killed. 

The man, named only as ‘MS’ at the tribunal, said he entered the UK illegally using a false passport in June or July 2008 and claimed asylum in June 2015 – which was refused in November 2015. 

His appeal was initially rejected by the First-Tier Tribunal and he was refused stateless leave. 

The First-Tier Tribunal judge found that his Rohingya Refugee Family Book did not belong to him – but an email confirmed that he was registered as a refugee in Bangladesh.

The judge found that MS would be at a ‘real risk’ of committing suicide if he returned home – yet there was no reference to where his home actually was.

However, the man was granted the right to appeal by the Upper Tribunal due to ‘misapplied principles’ by the judge and him overlooking certain documentation.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Victor Rae-Reeves said: ‘I agree with [MS’s] argument that the Judge does not provide adequate reasoning as to why being a refugee in Bangladesh would not demonstrate that he is from Myanmar rather than Bangladesh, which is the issue at large. 

‘Nothing in this decision should be construed as a commentary on the merits of [MS’s] appeal. 

‘The Judge’s focus appears to be on the Family Book rather than his own assessment of the evidence in relation to the issue in dispute namely [MS’s] nationality, of which the family book is only one part. 

‘If the Judge had given due focus on the agreed issue before him – nationality – he may have considered why he would have been a refugee in Bangladesh. 

‘However, as the Judge has rejected [MS’s] protection claim that he is a Myanmar national, it may be inferred that his analysis assumes a return to Bangladesh, but is not clear. 

‘The Judge expressly accepts the expert’s expertise and sets out without criticism his findings of PTSD and major depressive disorder. The Judge appears to be relying on the expert’s conclusions.’

The deputy judge added: ‘The report is predicated on [MS’s] mistreatment, and it states: “there is a significant connection between [MS’s] mental health conditions and his traumatic experience in Burma [Myanmar] and Bangladesh…. and is directly related to witnessing violence in Burma”.

‘The Judge fails to grapple with on the one hand, his acceptance of the expert’s conclusions, and on the other apparently rejecting and not considering the causation set out in the report.

‘Without a fuller assessment it is not possible to determine whether or not the Judge has considered such causation in his analysis of nationality.

‘The absence of full analysis and the failure to provide full reasoning is a material error of law because the Judge does not set out any of the factors required and fails to identify which country MS would be returned to.

‘He predicates his conclusions on the psychiatrist’s findings which are based on the possibility of removal to Myanmar.’