A Pakistani asylum seeker, Nadra Almas, has been awarded nearly £100,000 in damages after a 16-year legal battle, during which she argued that she was treated unfairly after overstaying her visa in the UK.
Almas initially arrived in Britain on a student visa in 2004 but remained in the country after it expired. She later sought asylum, claiming she faced persecution in Pakistan due to her Christian faith.
In 2018, she was detained, handcuffed, and told she would be deported, but she was released two weeks later. The Home Office then took almost three years to grant her refugee status, during which time she was unable to work, travel, or claim benefits. She argued that this treatment violated her human rights, causing her significant emotional distress and financial hardship.
Her case was heard in the High Court in Birmingham after the Government appealed an earlier decision to award her £98,757.04 in damages. However, the appeal was dismissed, with the judge upholding both the original ruling and the compensation amount.
Legal Battle and Detention
The court heard that after her visa expired, Almas received a notice of removal in 2008. Between 2005 and 2014, she submitted multiple applications to remain in the UK. In 2015, her asylum claim was rejected as “clearly unfounded,” but she reapplied later that year.
In 2018, her son was granted refugee status on the same grounds as her application. However, shortly after, she was detained when reporting to the Home Office. She was handcuffed, placed in a room with two strangers, and told she would be deported to Pakistan.
The court found multiple breaches in the process of her detention at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, including a failure to consider alternatives to detention. Following a fresh claim for asylum, she was released but remained under restrictions while awaiting a decision.
Delays and Human Rights Violations
The Home Office took nearly three years to approve Almas’s refugee status, which the court ruled was a violation of her right to a private and family life under the Human Rights Act.
The original judge, Recorder McNeill, stated that during this period, Almas was unable to work, travel, or live freely, causing significant emotional distress. She was dependent on minimal asylum support and felt humiliated relying on friends and family for help.
McNeill described the Home Office’s handling of her detention as “outrageous” and showing “a reckless disregard for her rights.” The judge emphasized that Almas’s fear of returning to Pakistan was later validated when she was granted refugee status, confirming the legitimacy of her concerns.
Government’s Appeal Rejected
The Home Office challenged both the ruling and the compensation amount, but Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed the appeal, affirming that the original decision was logical and well-supported by evidence. He stated that the breaches were significant and not minor, and that the damages awarded were appropriate given the impact on Almas’s life.
Source: LIIE IMMIGRATION
