Home Office rejects Nigerian man’s right to stay in UK over links to countries he’s never visited

Exclusive: Decision letter riddled with errors included immigration history for a different person

The 57-year-old man, who has lived in the UK for decades, applied for permission to stay in the country on the basis of his family and private life (PA)

A Nigerian man has had his bid to remain in the UK rejected by the Home Office because of connections to countries he's never even visited, The Independent can reveal.

In a letter that prompts serious questions about the standard of government decision-making, officials wrote that the man, 57, who has lived in the UK for decades, should have no problem returning to Lebanon or India despite him having no links to either country.

His latest leave to remain application for permission to stay in the country was submitted in July 2022 based on his family ties to the UK – his sister and brother live in Scotland and Essex respectively.

It took the Home Office a year to reject his claim when it eventually denied his application because of his non-existent connections to India and Lebanon, with the refusal letter detailing the immigration history of an entirely different person.

Have you been affected by this story? If so email holly.bancroft@independent.co.uk

The letter states the man “will have retained knowledge of the life, language and culture of Lebanon and would not face significant obstacles to re-integrate back into life in [sic] there”.

They also told him that there were no factors “which would severely limit your ability to enjoy your life in India and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not accepted that you would be unable to re-establish and maintain your life there”.

The decision also wrongly stated: “On 05 October 2109 you claim to have entered the UK with entry clearance on a Tier 4 student visa.”

On receipt of the refusal decision, the applicant’s case worker, Nick Beales, of the charity Ramfel, contacted the Home Office about the errors.

Officials offered their “sincere apologies for the grammatical errors in the previous letter” only to attach a new version, which still wrongly referred to the man’s ability to “enjoy your life in India”.

The Nigerian national told The Independent: “The Home Office decision is just like copy and paste. They didn’t go through the application that Nick submitted. They just copied another person’s decision, with these references to Lebanon and India. I was so surprised.

“I think they must have been embarrassed. Even the corrections that they made were wrong. They removed the Lebanon reference but they still didn’t go through it because the reference to India is still there. They just didn’t go through the letter.”

Applicants are entitled to leave to remain status in the UK if they have lived continuously in the country for 20 years or more.

In a previous immigration hearing in 2019, the government agreed that the man had been in the UK since at least 2004. Mr Beales has since presented evidence to the Home Office that his client has been in the UK since at least 2002, with the man saying he arrived in the UK illegally in 1992. This point of contention was not however referenced in the Home Office’s nine-page visa refusal.

Mr Beales said: “They’ve not made any reference at all to the 2002 evidence that we provided. Nor have they made any sort of comment on the fact that they’ve already conceded that he’s been here since 2004. I’ve seen a lot of careless Home Office refusal letters but I’ve never seen one this careless – getting someone else’s immigration history in there, where they are talking about three separate countries, and where they’re just ignoring the evidence that’s been provided.”

The man is now appealing the application rejection.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We apologise to [this applicant] for the incorrect correspondence regarding his case, and are in contact with him to make amends.

“We expect our caseworkers to work at the highest standard, and make decisions that are fair and in line with immigration rules.”