Migrant facing deportation wins right to stay in Britain... because he's got a cat

It may have been one of the least plausible attempts to avoid deportation - but it worked.



An illegal immigrant was allowed to stay in Britain because he had a cat, it was revealed yesterday.



The unnamed Bolivian was spared deportation after he told a court that he and his girlfriend had bought the animal as a pet.

Immigration judges ruled that sending him back home would breach his human rights by interfering with his family life.

The spectacular setting of the Bolivian capital, La Paz, at 3,600 metres above sea level. The unnamed immigrant was allowed to avoid deportation to his home country because he had a cat

The decision by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal caused 'disappointment' at the Home Office and amazement among anti-immigration campaigners, who questioned why the existence of a pet cat could be considered relevant to an immigration case.

Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think tank said the argument over the cat was 'utterly absurd' and reflected badly on the attitudes of judges.

Court papers on the case have kept secret the name of the cat alongside that of the immigrant as part of its privacy procedures.

Criticism: Tory Immigration spokesman Damian Green

However one immigration judge, Judith Gleeson, remarked in the official ruling that the cat 'need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice.'

The cat ruling was made by immigration judge James Devittie after the Bolivian submitted evidence that claimed joint ownership of the pet with his girlfriend demonstrated he was settled in Britain and it would break human rights rules to remove him.

The solicitor who represented the Bolivian, Barry O'Leary, told the Sunday Telegraph that the cat was one detail among many in the case.

He said: 'When giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat,' he said. 'It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together.

'The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered.



'They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat.'

Sir Andrew Green said: 'Drawing pets into the consideration of issues of such importance is so utterly absurd that you could not make it up.

'This is symptomatic of the attitude held by many of the judiciary, which is complete disregard for the impact of such decisions on the future of our community.'

Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think tank said the argument over the cat was 'utterly absurd' (file picture)



