This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.
Abdul Ezedi, an Afghan who entered the UK illegally by hiding in a lorry, is now the subject of a high-speed manhunt by the Metropolitan Police. Despite being easily identifiable due to severe facial burns, he remains at large.
What’s particularly alarming is that Ezedi, the alleged attacker, was an asylum seeker whose claim had been rejected twice before being accepted following an immigration tribunal judge’s ruling in his favour in 2020 after he appealed against a third refusal. The judge’s decision followed the acceptance of a retired Baptist church minister’s confirmation that Ezedi had converted to Christianity and was “wholly committed” to his new religion. The appeal was successful despite Ezedi’s conviction for sexual offences in 2018 and being placed on the sex offenders register for ten years.
To be fair to the Home Office in this case, they did at least try. Nevertheless, we have learned from reliable contacts, with knowledge of what happens, that while the Home Office may not hold data on how many people are granted asylum on converting to Christianity, the suspicion is that it runs to significant numbers. The fact is, even when caseworkers have serious doubts that an application is genuine, they know that refusing it when it’s backed by a local church and the applicant comes from a country known to persecute Christians, is pointless. Why? Because the refusal is unlikely to be endorsed by senior officials. And on the rare occasions when the Home Office sticks to its guns and cases go to appeal, refusals are invariably overturned, as happened with Ezedi. Judges, it seems, are much readier to accept the word of asylum seekers backed by the clergy than the assessment of experienced officials acting within the immigration rules.
However, inconsistencies abound with the Ezedi case. He claimed Afghanistan was too dangerous for him yet planned to return to find a wife. He received support from taxpayer-funded charities despite having family members in the UK.
This case exposes systemic weaknesses in our asylum and immigration systems, fuelled by flawed human rights laws and complicit individuals and institutions.
Our politicians and government must confront these weaknesses realistically, advocating for reforms to human rights laws, international agreements, and immigration policies. Addressing unprovable claims and halting funding to organisations opposing border controls are urgent steps needed to restore integrity to the immigration and asylum systems.
This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.