In actual fact, the man is not married at all.
A Pakistani asylum seeker accused of pretending to be gay to stay in the UK has been granted an appeal after a judge’s error.
The man, who came to the UK as a student, applied for permission to remain here but was rejected by an immigration tribunal.
However, the judge who made the decision has now had it struck out.
The judge was also criticised for using the word ‘he’ when referring to a witness who identifies as a trans woman.
Upper Tribunal judge Paul Skinner described the previous ruling’s “use of non-female pronouns” as something which was “to be regretted”.
He also said the previous judge mistakenly suggested that the applicant was in a “marriage of convenience” with a woman. In actual fact, the man is not married at all.
That was the reason he gave for overturning the asylum rejection and sending it back to be heard again by a different judge.
But Judge Skinner made a point of raising concerns about how a trans witness who had been supporting the asylum seeker was mentioned in the earlier ruling.
Referring to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, it stipulated that “it should usually be possible for a trans person to be referred to in their acquired gender”.
He said: “A person’s gender identity can be of profound importance to an individual and for a trans person being referred to by their birth sex may cause real distress.
“Moreover, referring to a trans witness by their birth sex is unlikely to foster an environment where they feel comfortable in giving evidence or feel like they have treated with respect.”
The new judgment described how one of the applicant’s witnesses was a trans woman named Claudia Coelho, adding:
“That she is trans is made clear in paragraph 1 of her witness statement.”
Judge Skinner said: “Notwithstanding this, and the fact that the Judge in certain places refers to Ms Coelho as ‘she’, in her decision, the Judge (as well as misspelling the witnesses’ surname ‘Quoeto’) states ‘he has been a host at Disco Rani since 2012. He welcomes people when they come to the club’.”
The other judge asked the witness “whether it has never crossed his mind that the appellant is pretending to be gay in order to regularise his immigration status in this country to which they replied that the thought never crossed their mind”.
On the comments, Judge Skinner said: “The Judge’s use of non-female pronouns to describe Ms Coelho, and the apparently interchangeable use of different gendered pronouns (which may itself reasonably be perceived (whether correctly or not) as reflecting a view by the Judge that Ms Coelho’s gender identity is not something worthy of respect), are to be regretted.”
The asylum seeker, who was granted anonymity, first claimed asylum on the basis of his sexuality on September 29, 2020.
The Home Office rejected his claim “on the basis that it was not accepted that he was in fact gay”, prompting an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal which hears immigration cases.
The Home Office has now “conceded” that the original decision should be set aside, the appeal allowed and the case heard again.
It was concluded that the previous judge made an “error of law” by saying the Home Office had considered “the marriage as a marriage of convenience” after being told of a relationship between the asylum seeker and a woman.
Judge Skinner said:
“This is wrong in two respects: first, the appellant had never claimed to have been married to his partner.”
“And, secondly, as already noted, there was no allegation by the Respondent [the Home Office] as to the genuineness or otherwise of the claimed relationship.
“By the by, the Judge also appeared, wrongly, to have considered that this was an application under the EU Settlement Scheme, which did not exist at the time of the appellant’s 2018 application.”
Loading ...