UK: Iraqi asylum seeker who killed girl in hit & run allowed to remain in UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/16/iraqi-killed-girl-remain-uk

I don't want to get all Daily Mail about this, but seriously?  A guy with "a string of criminal convictions" who killed a girl in a hit & run accident which happened while he was banned from driving gets to stay permanently in the UK because to deport him to his native Iraq would violate his human rights?

At some point on my journey to citizenship I'm going to have to gather up all my traffic records from 4 different US states to make sure I don't get deported for leaving off a traffic ticket from 1994, but this clown kills someone while banned from driving and he can stay?

I realize I'm conflating traffic records and human rights issues, but I don't care.  This guy ought to be shipped out of the UK on the next flight to Iraq.

{edited to add} Also, it's stories like this one that make immigration such a hot topic in the UK.  If I'm pi$$ed off that this guy gets to stay, imagine what the average Daily Mail reader thinks about it.

Considering some of the people deported despite having children here (the man whose wife was killed by a medical mistake during birth comes to mind), this is a bit confusing.  It makes people who are here legitimately and who might need to pursue special leave to extend their leave to remain look bad.  It also sticks in the mind of people who just want to see how "soft touch" the immigration system is and ignores the realities.

I don't get how this was even considered.  It's not like he was even here legitimately when the accident occured.  I would have much more sympathy for him if he had stayed with the girl despite his immigration status or tried to get help.  Sometimes there are things bigger than ourselves, even if that means that we might have a negative consequence.  This was a girl's life, and I don't know if him staying and contacting the emergency services would have made a difference, but I am sure he didn't know at the time either.  Yeah, it's easy for me to say this now never having been subjected to the sort of situation which makes people flee their home countries with the intent to seek asylum, but I don't know how I could have lived with myself I had acted as he did after the accident.

We have this thing called the "rule of law" here. Two senior immigration judges have given a ruling that will have been considered in the light of precedent, case law and statute, and drafted inline with the law as it stands. This is not the judges' opinions, or how they feel, but how they have applied a quite narrow interpretation to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. I personally am happy with that.

Camoscato, you won't get "deported" for forgetting about a traffic ticket.

We have this thing called the "rule of law" here. Two senior immigration judges have given a ruling that will have been considered in the light of precedent, case law and statute, and drafted inline with the law as it stands. This is not the judges' opinions, or how they feel, but how they have applied a quite narrow interpretation to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. I personally am happy with that.

Yeah, I've heard of the rule of law.  Would that be the same rule of law that says you're not supposed to be driving when your license is revoked? 

Balanced against the human rights of the immigrant in this case should be the benefit (or threat) to the larger society in which he seeks to remain, along with a careful consideration of the threat he faces from return to his home country. 

I would argue that multiple criminal convictions and killing a child with a motor vehicle while banned from driving show that this person has no respect for the rule of law, or for the country in which he seeks to live.  Further, while he may, as an Iraqi Kurd, have faced persecution back in 2003, he no longer does.  Saddam Hussein is dead and Kurdistan is largely autonomous; send him home. 

Camoscato, you won't get "deported" for forgetting about a traffic ticket.

{sarcasm}Of course not, because we both know the government is warmly welcoming immigrants who marry UK citizens.  They certainly wouldn't jump on any opportunity to pedantically apply the rules in order to keep one more immigrant out of the country, would they?{/sarcasm}

Wake up.

Balanced against the human rights of the immigrant in this case should be the benefit (or threat) to the larger society in which he seeks to remain, along with a careful consideration of the threat he faces from return to his home country.  

This is exactly what immigration judges do. They strike a balance between the human rights of the appellant and the actual, present and future threat posed to society. The IAC makes most initial decisions through a single immigration judge. Either of the parties can apply for reconsideration. A Senior Immigration Judge considers whether or not the grounds for reconsideration are "arguable". The only matters which can be considered are errors of law. A party cannot say that he seeks a re-hearing of the facts or that the factual conclusions reached by the Immigration Judge are wrong. He can only seek reconsideration if the Immigration Judge has misdirected himself in law, failed to consider relevant material, considered irrelevant material, or erred in his fact-finding to the extent that the findings are irrational and therefore amount to an error of law.

So, have you read every paragraph of the initial decision and the reconsidered decision, and are you able to identify any errors of law that the Upper Tribunal judges missed? If so, then it might be as well for you to write to Field House pronto and put them right. I understand how emotive this case is and you do see newspaper stories where relatives of dead people say things like "What about our human rights?" and "We are serving a life sentence" etc but this is not a good way to run a legal system.

PS I am fully awake.

You can keep explaining how the courts work all you want, but that's not the point.

When I apply to stay in the UK permanently as the spouse of a UK citizen, my character will be taken into account, and I believe this is a good thing.  An immigrant seeking permanent residence in a new country should have to prove - at the very least - they are willing and able to abide by its laws.  The government has a duty to its citizens to ensure those immigrants who are granted permanent residency or citizenship are - at the very least - not going to pose a threat to public safety.

My problem with this case is that a man with a significant criminal record is being allowed to remain in the UK permanently, citing his human right to the family life he has established in the UK.  Was his character taken into account or not?  If his record was taken into account by whoever made this decision, then the threshold of unacceptable criminal behavior is too high.  If his record was not taken into account, then it should have been.

He ran somebody down in a car. There is no suggestion that he did it deliberately or that he is planning to make a habit of it. If he had been convicted of e.g. armed robbery or dealing Class A drugs then a different balance might have been struck.

He ran somebody down in a car. There is no suggestion that he did it deliberately or that he is planning to make a habit of it. If he had been convicted of e.g. armed robbery or dealing Class A drugs then a different balance might have been struck.

You've left an awful lot out of that description.  In 2003 he ran somebody down in a car he was driving after having been banned from driving for nine months for driving while disqualified for not having insurance and not having a license.  In 2006 he was caught driving again while disqualified.  He also has convictions for drug possession, burglary, harassment, criminal damage, and theft.

So in addition to killing a child, he has also been banned from driving at least twice, and committed at least 5 other crimes.  I would argue that this is evidence enough that this man is not of good character, and his right to establish a family is outweighed by the threat he poses to the rest of the people of the UK.

Well, you have your opinion and I have mine.

This is the daily mail that we're talking about here. Chances are there are many details left out and this is something that has been pending for seven years. It's probably not that simple. I found in other articles that he has a British wife and children in the UK and it's not fair to uproot an entire family.

I'm sorry camoscato, but I have to disagree. Just because Saddam is out of the picture, does not mean that things are just peachy in Iraq. The man was given ILR so the UK is his 'home'. I certainly don't like what I've read of this man, nor do I want anything to do with him, but I'm not going to say that he should be deported just from reading a biased news article. He shouldn't be deported imo, he should be sent to prison for a long time.

He also has convictions for drug possession, burglary, harassment, criminal damage, and theft.

As far as I know he has cautions for the burglary and theft. Yes that doesn't make him man of the year, but just pointing out that a caution is not a conviction.

When I apply to stay in the UK permanently as the spouse of a UK citizen,

Exactly.  You will not be applying as an asylum seeker. If you were refused (not that you would be|) you might be disappointed, but you wouldn't have to possibly live in fear.

Also, please note that he is not just an Iraqi, he is an Iraqi Kurd.

Just so that everyone is aware that this person in question may have ILR status but it will be nary impossible for him to qualify for Naturalisation since he will not meet the 'Good Character' requirement. So there's a tiny consolation in that.

Exactly.  You will not be applying as an asylum seeker. If you were refused (not that you would be|) you might be disappointed, but you wouldn't have to possibly live in fear.

Also, please note that he is not just an Iraqi, he is an Iraqi Kurd.

If he was a legitimate asylum seeker, then the system failed him, and his case should have been reviewed on that basis. 

This is the daily mail that we're talking about here. Chances are there are many details left out and this is something that has been pending for seven years. It's probably not that simple. I found in other articles that he has a British wife and children in the UK and it's not fair to uproot an entire family.

I hear what you're saying, but the link is from The Guardian, and while I fully understand the argument that everyone has a right to a family life, is there nothing that outweighs that right?  A person is dead because of this guy's lawbreaking, and it's not like he just made one terrible mistake that he'll regret forever; he's been breaking the law repeatedly for seven years.  What does somebody have to do to be judged of bad character?

I'm sorry camoscato, but I have to disagree. Just because Saddam is out of the picture, does not mean that things are just peachy in Iraq.

Exactly.  You will not be applying as an asylum seeker. If you were refused (not that you would be|) you might be disappointed, but you wouldn't have to possibly live in fear.

Also, please note that he is not just an Iraqi, he is an Iraqi Kurd.

If this guy was so fearful of being sent back to Iraq, perhaps he shouldn't have spent so much time breaking laws in the UK.  If I'd been granted a new life in a new country that made me safe from persecution, I'd feel like I owed a debt to my new country, and one of the ways to repay that debt is to conduct myself like a responsible member of society.

I don't want to sound too right-wing; normally I'd come down on the side of the human rights of the individual.  This guy, though, has a record of bad behavior that I believe should be taken into greater account when it comes to balancing his human rights against the rights of society.

Considering some of the people deported despite having children here (the man whose wife was killed by a medical mistake during birth comes to mind), this is a bit confusing.  

I thought I read that his child was in his home country and not in the UK?