A court has ruled that a convicted migrant can remain in the United Kingdom after a prolonged legal battle over his deportation, with judges concluding that removal would have an excessively harsh impact on his child. Klevis Disha, 39, had faced deportation following a criminal conviction but successfully appealed the decision on human rights grounds. The case has drawn attention due to arguments presented about the impact on his 11-year-old son. Get today's headlines by email Disha first arrived in the UK in 2001 as an unaccompanied minor and initially sought asylum using false personal details. His claim was rejected, but after a lengthy appeals process he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2005. Deportation challenge reaches final rulingIn 2017, he was sentenced to two years in prison after being found in possession of £250,000 in cash deemed to be the proceeds of crime. Under UK law, foreign nationals sentenced to more than 12 months in prison are typically subject to automatic deportation. Legal arguments focus on family impactDuring the appeal process, Disha’s legal team argued that deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his son. The case centred on the child’s welfare and whether he could reasonably relocate to Albania or remain in the UK without his father. Earlier tribunal proceedings had questioned the strength of these arguments, including references to the child’s dietary preferences. However, in the final ruling, Judge Veloso accepted broader concerns about the boy’s wellbeing. The court noted that the child has a restricted diet and difficulties with certain food textures, as well as wider challenges that would make relocation particularly difficult. The judge concluded that deportation would have a disproportionate impact under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which safeguards the right to family life. Prolonged legal processThe case has moved through multiple stages of appeal. An earlier decision blocking deportation was overturned, leading to further hearings before the final judgment was issued. Officials from the Home Office had argued that deportation should proceed, maintaining that the threshold for preventing removal had not been met. Political reactionThe ruling has prompted criticism from some political figures, who argue that human rights laws are being misused to prevent the removal of foreign offenders. The government has said it remains committed to deporting individuals convicted of serious crimes, while also complying with legal obligations under human rights legislation. The case highlights the continuing tension between immigration enforcement and the protection of family life under UK law. oin the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 19 March 2026
View full article
Create an account or sign in to comment