A migrant couple from El Salvador has been granted permission to remain in the UK after arguing that warring gangs in their home country made it impossible for them to continue their relationship. Despite not speaking English or being self-sufficient, the couple will now live in the UK at taxpayers' expense following an immigration tribunal’s ruling.  

 

The man in the relationship fled El Salvador after receiving death threats from a local gang whenever he visited the town where his girlfriend lived. Due to the threat of persecution, he was granted asylum in the UK. His girlfriend later joined him, arguing that deporting her would violate her right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  

 

An immigration tribunal ruled in favor of the couple, stating that their wish to “remain together in the UK” outweighed the “public interest in immigration control.” The ruling was made despite both individuals being asylum seekers who “do not work (because they are not allowed to), do not speak English, and are not self-sufficient.” Asylum seekers in the UK are entitled to £49.18 per week for food, clothing, and toiletries, as well as accommodation in a flat, house, hostel, or bed and breakfast.  

 

The case, which was disclosed in court papers, is one of several where human rights laws have been used to prevent deportations. Similar cases include an Albanian criminal who avoided deportation by citing his son’s aversion to foreign chicken nuggets and a Pakistani convicted of child sex offences who was allowed to stay in the UK because his removal would be “unduly harsh” on his children.  

 

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, criticized the ruling, stating, “Gang violence in El Salvador has been very substantially reduced recently, and extending to someone’s girlfriend’s – who the man is not even married to – family rights is a step too far. Family rights were designed to stop families and children being broken up in war, not as an immigration back door. This is another case which shows why fundamental reform of human rights law is needed.”  

 

The couple initially had their asylum claims rejected by the Home Office after arriving in the UK in March 2020. They appealed the decision, and while the man was eventually granted asylum, the woman’s claim was rejected. However, a first-tier tribunal ruled in favor of her right to remain based on her claim to family life under the ECHR. She later appealed the rejection of her asylum claim.  

 

The upper tribunal reviewing her case was told that the man had lived in Comasagua, a town controlled by the notorious Barrio-18 gang. His girlfriend lived in San Marcos, where he frequently visited her. However, he was threatened three times by members of MS-13, who warned him that he could suffer the same fate as his cousin, who had “disappeared.”  

 

The tribunal judges accepted that the man faced a “real risk of persecution” if he returned to El Salvador, qualifying him for protection under the Refugee Convention. They also ruled that the couple’s ability to maintain a normal relationship was severely limited by the gang violence in their home country. “The ability to conduct a normal life, including visits to one another, can only be carried out at significant risk to one or the other or both,” the judges stated. “The alternative, for fear of harm, is to remain out of sight and/or to cease visiting one another. Neither is an acceptable state of affairs. It is regrettable that international protection may be required in such circumstances.”  

 

Despite ongoing debates about immigration and asylum laws, the ruling highlights how human rights protections continue to play a role in determining who is allowed to stay in the UK.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-07

 

 

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

The man in the relationship fled El Salvador after receiving death threats from a local gang whenever he visited the town where his girlfriend lived.

 

You believe that, you'll believe anything. 

 

There are so many ridiculous reasons given to stay in the UK and they are nearly all accepted.

 

Here's another one.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14383793/mother-delays-deportation-Caribbean-hot.html

 

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You believe that, you'll believe anything. 

 

There are so many ridiculous reasons given to stay in the UK and they are nearly all accepted.

 

Here's another one.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14383793/mother-delays-deportation-Caribbean-hot.html

 

 

She has not been given permission to stay in the UK. Her request to stay was rejected so she has the right to appeal; that is what she is currently doing. It is likely that she will lose that appeal and she will be deported. Nothing to see here other than clickbait headlines and frothing people who either don't understand the real situation or don't want to understand it. 

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

It is likely that she will lose that appeal and she will be deported. 

 

You have no basis for that assumption.

 

Certainly not based on the OP.

 

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

A migrant couple from El Salvador has been granted permission to remain in the UK after arguing that warring gangs in their home country made it impossible for them to continue their relationship. Despite not speaking English or being self-sufficient, the couple will now live in the UK at taxpayers' expense following an immigration tribunal’s ruling.  

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You have no basis for that assumption.

 

Certainly not based on the OP.

 

 

 

I was referring to your link about the Caribbean woman. She is using her own money to launch an appeal against the ruling to deport her; an appeal that is likely to fail. 

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

I was referring to your link about the Caribbean woman. She is using her own money to launch an appeal against the ruling to deport her; an appeal that is likely to fail. 

 

Yes and she has so far managed to delay deportation.

 

A decision that is likely to make her appeal successful so she can stay like the people this post is about.

 

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

Despite not speaking English or being self-sufficient, the couple will now live in the UK at taxpayers' expense following an immigration tribunal’s ruling.  

 

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Yes and she has so far managed to delay deportation.

 

A decision that is likely to make her appeal successful so she can stay like the people this post is about.

 

Why do you believe that her appeal will be successful? Her premise for her appeal are so weak as to be laughable - all she is most likely doing is throwing away her own money to delay the inevitable. 

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Why do you believe that her appeal will be successful? Her premise for her appeal are so weak as to be laughable - all she is most likely doing is throwing away her own money to delay the inevitable. 

 

Because so many appeals on ridiculous grounds are successful.

 

Even if it fails it is unlikely she will ever actually be deported. Britain is weak and hogtied by the ECHR. We need to ditch that ASAP.  

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Because so many appeals on ridiculous grounds are successful.

 

 

Can you highlight any which are successful with such frivolous justifications?

21 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Can you highlight any which are successful with such frivolous justifications?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14432239/Migrant-human-rights-law-UK-jailed-sex-teenager.html

 

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14432239/Migrant-human-rights-law-UK-jailed-sex-teenager.html

 

 

It appears that he committed the offences after his claim for asylum, so not the same. And, as per the article, will be deported.

 

So going back to the Caribbean woman's likely doomed attempt to appeal the court's order, is there no precedent you can find where trivial claims are upheld as the principal reason for original deportation rulings being overturned on appeal? 

32 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

It appears that he committed the offences after his claim for asylum, so not the same. And, as per the article, will be deported.

 

It was the same until he started his one man crime wave.

 

After having sex with the teenager (amongst other crimes) it was even worse. 

 

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

The man in the relationship fled El Salvador after receiving death threats from a local gang whenever he visited the town where his girlfriend lived. Due to the threat of persecution, he was granted asylum in the UK. His girlfriend later joined him, arguing that deporting her would violate her right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

 

What am I missing here?

Surely they could have both moved to a different area in El Salvador away from the local gang that was the problem? There, they would have no language problem and can find work to support themselves.
Why the need to go to another country where they do not speak the language?

First the husband allowed, then the wife next the kids and the parents later the in laws. Free housing and benefits. Welcome all to the UK Starmer's land of plenty. 

37 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Welcome all to the UK Starmer's land of plenty

 

Labour came into power in 2024.  The couple concerned came to the UK in March 2020.  The Tories are responsible for this situation - not Labour.

In fairness neither the Tories or labour and really interested in stopping their kind of nonsense, Britain now is an open house for any illegal immigrant

1 hour ago, Zaphod Priest said:

 

 The Tories are responsible for this situation - not Labour.

 

Really?

 

The couple initially had their asylum claims rejected by the Home Office after arriving in the UK in March 2020.

 

So under a Tory government their asylum claims were rejected, under 2 Tier Kier's watch they have been granted permission to stay. I used bold print to make easier for you to understand.

13 minutes ago, DaveBart said:

In fairness neither the Tories or labour and really interested in stopping their kind of nonsense, Britain now is an open house for any illegal immigrant

In fairness the facts suggest otherwise:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/09/home-office-says-record-number-of-asylum-seekers-deported-since-july

22 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I was referring to your link about the Caribbean woman. She is using her own money to launch an appeal against the ruling to deport her; an appeal that is likely to fail. 

Eraser Jonny only needs to see the words asylum, small boat, UK taxpayer funded or ECHR and the right wing drivel churns out in overdrive.

I’ve followed the El Salvador couple’s story and consider that their case has merit.

As for Tory Philp’s nauseating comment “they’re not even married “

Jeez………..

22 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

She is using her own money to launch an appeal against the ruling to deport her; an appeal that is likely to fail. 

 

Out of curiosity, is she also on the dole, freeing up "her money" to fight the gub'ment?

 

Noting the following from the OP:  Despite not speaking English or being self-sufficient, the couple will now live in the UK at taxpayers' expense following an immigration tribunal’s ruling.

 

One of the big sticking points in the USA is the newcomers taking gub'ment benefits and sending the excess to their relatives back home.  It may be "their" money they send back home, but they're getting that money at taxpayer expense.  I wonder if it's the same across the pond?

 

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Out of curiosity, is she also on the dole, freeing up "her money" to fight the gub'ment?

 

Noting the following from the OP:  Despite not speaking English or being self-sufficient, the couple will now live in the UK at taxpayers' expense following an immigration tribunal’s ruling.

 

One of the big sticking points in the USA is the newcomers taking gub'ment benefits and sending the excess to their relatives back home.  It may be "their" money they send back home, but they're getting that money at taxpayer expense.  I wonder if it's the same across the pond?

 

Come back and tell us if you ever find any evidence to support your loaded curiosity.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Come back and tell us if you ever find any evidence to support your loaded curiosity.

 

I'm just curious.  I was hoping someone from the UK who GAF would respond.   More accurately, GMoAF, which is "Gave More".