Man stranded in Africa can appeal to be allowed back into the UK

• Saleh Ahmed Handule Ali lost his travel document when he travelled to Ethopia
• Home Office had no record of his status to stay in the UK indefinitely

A man stranded in Africa for the last 15 years after he lost his travel document can appeal to be allowed back into the UK, Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

Saleh Ahmed Handule Ali lost the vital document while he was in Ethiopia in 2009 when he was a teenager.

He and his family had been granted permission to stay in the UK indefinitely in 2004 but he wasn’t able to get a new document as the Home Office had no record of his status.

Mr Ali has been stranded in the east African country ever since with repeated bids for entry clearance being denied.

Yesterday, three appeal judges – Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Andrews – gave Mr Ali the green light to challenge a decision by an immigration tribunal to block his return, ruling there was an ‘overwhelming case’ for an appeal in the ‘most extraordinary’ circumstances.

The Home Office said it was ‘carefully considering’ the court’s ruling.

Three Court of Appeal judges at the Royal Courts of Justice ruled Saleh Ahmed Handule Ali can appeal to be allowed back into the UK after being stranded in Ethiopia for 15 years

A hearing in March was told that Mr Ali was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2004 after relocating from his home country of Somalia with his family.

He was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 2008, aged 18, and travelled to Djibouti to aid his recovery.

READ MORE: Harsh reason why Australians were left stranded in Africa after cruise ship left without them 

He planned to return to the UK within two years, as allowed by immigration rules, but lost his travel document in 2009.

Mr Ali travelled to the nearest British embassy in neighbouring Ethiopia but was twice unsuccessful in gaining the necessary paperwork to return to the UK.

Lady Justice Andrews said that even after being provided with a copy of the document by his mother, his immigration status could not be proved as ‘the Home Office had failed to keep a record on its database of the grant of indefinite leave to remain’.

She said: ‘The Home Office had no information on their system to show that the appellant had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK before he left the country in 2008.

‘Quite how this could have happened, particularly when all the other family members were granted indefinite leave to remain at the same time, and the appellant had been issued with the travel document, is difficult to comprehend.’

Due to not having a travel document, Mr Ali lost his right to return to the UK after two years in line with immigration law and has remained in Ethiopia since then.

After an application for entry clearance was refused in 2015, Mr Ali made a second application in 2019.

Lady Justice King was part of the three judge panel alongside Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Andrews which gave Mr Ali the green light

Barristers for Mr Ali said the case represented a ‘historic injustice’ due to a ‘wrongful failure’ by the Home Office to record Mr Ali’s immigration status, but the application was again rejected.

Mr Ali took the decision to the Court of Appeal, with his lawyers claiming the decision infringed on his human rights.

The Home Office opposed the challenge but the judges said the appeal should be allowed as Mr Ali had been placed in an ‘invidious situation’ and had a ‘long-established private life within the UK which had been curtailed for reasons beyond his control’.

Agreeing with Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Coulson said: ‘This case is typical of many immigration and asylum cases, where those involved become fixated with so-called “principle” and fail properly to consider the underlying facts.

‘Here, on any view, the appellant’s history provides an overwhelming case for allowing the appeal.’

The judges ruled that an immigration tribunal should hear an appeal on Mr Ali’s case, to be heard at a later date.

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: ‘We are carefully considering the court’s decision. It would be inappropriate to comment further on ongoing legal proceedings.’

Read more