A Nepalese schizophrenic with multiple convictions has been allowed to stay in the UK after a court ruled he would be a ‘danger to himself and society’ if deported.
Sumit Rai built up a substantial criminal record since arriving in Britain in 2005, including a 16-month jail sentence for harassment, as well as convictions for anti-social behaviour and ‘serious’ drug offences.
But he has now won a human rights case at an asylum court and can remain in the UK after an immigration judge said he would be dangerous if he was sent back to Nepal.
It was found that the criminal would ‘fail to take his medication’ without his parents, who lived in the UK, telling him to do so if he went back to Nepal – meaning he would become a risk.
Rai entered the UK with his sister at age 13 in 2005 to join their parents. He was granted indefinite leave to remain.
Though a Nepalese citizen, he was born in Hong Kong in 1991 and educated in India. He was said to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, due to which he relies on support from his parents.
It was heard that they ‘provide practical and emotional support needed to maintain mental stability and to function on a daily basis, and to counter his tendency to self-neglect’.
But Rai had a ‘cavalier’ attitude to drug-taking, it was heard.
Details about his criminal history were not laid out in full at the immigration hearing however it was heard in 2010 he committed ‘serious’ drugs offences.
Sumit Rai as now won a human rights case after an immigration judge said he would be dangerous if he was sent back to Nepal (pictured: Upper Tribunal Immigration Court)
He re-offended in 2017 when he was ‘acutely psychotic’, triggering his liability for deportation.
Then, in 2019, he offended again and was subject to a deportation order, however he appealed against the order and won.
In 2025 he was jailed for 16 months under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the tribunal heard.
While in prison he took ‘illicit drugs’ and did not consistently take the medication for his mental illness and it was heard that Rai was ‘socially isolated’.
Most of his offending was ‘of an anti-social nature…until the last offences, which were specific and targeted’.
Rai only recently began consistently taking his medication because he had been moved out of prison and into an immigration detention facility.
It was heard that the reason for his latest re-offending was that his father, usually responsible for making sure his son took his medicine consistently, was being treated for cancer at the time.
However his father has now recovered and is able once again to take care of his son.
The Home Office attempted to deport Rai during his latest prison term but the criminal’s appeal was allowed.
The Home Office themselves appealed the judge’s decision to let Rai stay, but Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Grey agreed that allowing him to stay was ‘an outcome rationally open to the first Judge’.
She said: ‘(Rai’s) parents provide practical and emotional support needed to maintain mental stability and to function on a daily basis, and to counter his tendency to self-neglect and this support cannot reasonably be sustained after deportation, nor remotely, and there is no family available to do so in Nepal.
‘Though the father has resources to see that (Rai) would not be destitute in Nepal and has access to appropriate medical treatment, there is no close family who remains in Nepal and who would be willing/able to take over the role of (Rai’s) carer his mother and father have stood by him – despite this being challenging and provided practical and emotional support needed to maintain his mental stability and function on a day-to-day basis.
‘[Rai] requires their support on a daily basis to counter his tendency to self-neglect; they have been settled in the UK since 2005, and so cannot reasonably be sustained after deportation by them re-settling with him in Nepal or by them attempting to support him from a distance
‘In relation to what (Rai) was likely to face on return to Nepal, the Judge’s reasoning sets out the “stark reality”. The decision refers to the “certainty” that (Rai) would deteriorate very quickly (by failing to take his medication) and would be a ‘danger to himself and society’.’
Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Grey agreed that without his parents it was ‘certain’ that Rai would reoffend and even become ‘a danger’.
The judge continued: ‘The Judge accepted there was a risk of re-offending in the UK, albeit a diminished one. However, it was noted that this risk had been previously well-managed by his parents since 2019, until his father became ill with cancer when (Rai) was not adequately supervised.
‘(Rai’s) dependence on his parents and the family life that he shares with them were additional matters that weighed in (Rai’s) favour, as well as his father’s ill health and the Judge’s finding that his parents could not reasonably be expected to relocate to Nepal with him in order to care for their son.
‘Having conducted a detailed assessment of the public interest and [Rai’s] circumstances, it is apparent that the Judge conducted a careful proportionality assessment, referring to there being a ‘fine balance’ between the public interest and (Rai’s) rights.
‘The finding that (Rai) was able to demonstrate very compelling circumstances necessary to outweigh the public interest in deportation was an outcome rationally open to the Judge and the fact that the (Home Office) disagrees, or that another judge may have reached a different conclusion, does not mean the Judge’s decision can or should be interfered with.’