To wonder how Theresa May can sleep at night - young girl being deported on Mother's Day

[NadiaWadia]

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-home-secretary-fightforyashika-stop-this-sixth-form-student-being-deported-alone-she-deserves-a-future

Yashika Bageerathi, an A-level student of 18 or 19, fled Mauritius with her family due to life threatening domestic violence, seeking asylum in the UK. She is very well thought of by both staff and students at the school and was just about to finish her A-levels. She has been taken alone to a detention centre and will be sent back to Mauritius, alone, tomorrow. Apparently she has nobody in Mauritius. Theresa May apparently feels it would be 'inappropriate' for her to 'interfere' in this.

British Airways refused to take part in this, good for them. So now the government are sending her back via Air Mauritius. Change.org are now asking people to email the Chief Executive of Air Mauritius, Andre Viljoen at [email protected] asking him urgently to do the same. Worth a try don't you think?

Personally I find the actions of the government sickening and inhumane. This poor girl (and her family). Sounds like she would have been an asset to the UK.

Nadia, you are obviously a caring person. Here is a girl we can all sympathise with, it's a shame she has to leave the country.

But you haven't told us why Theresa May should be involved or why any airline should be petitioned.

I just don't think it's fair to ask people to sign petitions with such scant information. This isn't facebook. People here question everything, and rightly.

How does she sleep?
On huge piles of cash. Like the rest of the cabinet.

Morris one can be caring and not sign petition

Actually this story is odd, the family were threatened,her mum comes here and 2 years later the kids come over, they cla to have no friends or family, so who did he mom leave the kids with.. Some sympathy but not convinced about no support

It isn't difficult to research this online. That is what I did. I don;t make decisions based on the 'always somebody worse off who really needs help' because if we all did that, we'd be so busy hunting down the 'worser' case scenario, nothing or nobody would ever get helped.

Australia is about 2,000 miles closer than the UK.
Why did she roll up there and claim asylum, hmm, lets think about it!

Just to note: you can claim asylum in any country that allows you to. The Refugee Convention does not require you to claim in the closest country to you.

The Home Office expects you to claim in the first country you pass through. Therefore in the eyes of the Home Office (only) it's fine for her to claim asylum in the UK if she took a direct flight.

And Mauritius does NOT respect all Human Rights.

Yes SM, that was my point. The girl sounds lovely and I feel for her. But I won't be signing.

Morris, I think that was the point that many of us were making. I do have some sympathy but not enough to sign a petition.

OP if you wanted more acceptance and not a debate on the subject there is a petitions section.

This is sad but we have numerous asylum laws and processes.

I have personal experiences of these processes which are lengthly and detailed.

To reach the point of deportation means that every possible avenue has been explored through application after application and appeal after appeal at huge cost.

The young lady had very experienced and well paid legal teams who were luckily not relying on the OPs approach of just saying 'fuck off' to anyone that suggested she may have no legal right to remain here.

Her pleas were unsuccessful but that was not through lack of adequate investigation, consideration or sympathy.

My understanding is this (from The Guardian "There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state"

I have sympathy for her, but not enough to sign this petition.

SirChenjin but there's no requirement that the person fleeing persecution actually claims in a neighbouring country.

This is not a serious human rights issue. This young woman (calling her a school girl throws up an in accurate, emotive perception of someone much younger than her adult age of 19) does not have a right to be in this country. DV is NOT a valid reason for claiming assylum. I am aghast it has taken this long for officials to clarify the situation and get to this point. In the meantime the family has been accessing health care, education and legal services they were not entitled to.

The family clearly have links back home, as the dm left her children in someone's care for 2 years. It seems harsh that her case has been assessed quicker than her other family members so her enforced deportation date is earlier then theirs. (as they did not leave when not given permission to stay.)

Immigration is an emotive topic, but the facts are she is an illegal immigrant who has no right to be here. It's a sad case, but nothing more than that.

Also, to clarify it CAN be possible to get asylum from DV (particular social group in some countries). I've had clients be grated Refugee Status on that basis.

And DV CAN be a serious human rights issue - Articles 2 and 3 ECHR can easily be engaged. It comes down to the effectiveness of protection available in the specific country.

But it has to be very specific and almost endemic doesn't it? Usually in countries where women are very much subjugated.

That does not apply to Mauritius, her expert in Mauritius brief says so! That is why he is looking at a different clause, based on her future earnings, commitment, financial and social, to the UK etc.

Article 8, I think but may have misremembered.

It doesn't necessarily have to be endemic. In a corrupt country, if your husband is a policeman you're unlikely to get protection without moving away and that might be impossible as a single mum.

I'm not talking about Mauritius per se. I'm just responding to those saying DV is no reason for asylum. It can be, depending on the circumstances.

Her legal team will have complete knowledge of her case and expert knowledge of the laws and human rights legislation around domestic violence. As will the Judges who heard the case.

It's not just one person who says yes or no, these are legal processes!.

This has ALL been explored through numerous applications and appeals. They will have left no stone unturned.

She was not granted asylum. I have personally known people granted asylum or leave to remain for seemingly spurious reasons. If she has not then that means there are very good reasons why. It is sad, yes but every avenue has been explored.

No, no requirement - but a principle of understanding. I appreciate this is not the same thing, although if she chose to come to this country then she has to recognise our laws and legal processes with regard to asylum.

But clearly the alleged DV hasn't been compelling enough,that and various other factors

Thanks trazzletoes.

True, but the principle is still the other way round - a principle that neighbouring countries will accept refugees. Not a principle that refugees will go to neighbouring countries... Iyswim.

Also, I appreciate that safety is safety and that should be the primary objective. But on the other hand.. There are many MANY Countries in the world ( including Greece) where standards for asylum seekers breach human rights. Given the choice, is rather come to the uk or Scandinavia where you have a chance at life after refugee status. You can still achieve something with your life.

I fully agree though that this woman (she's treated separately from her mum because she's over 18) needs to be removed. Allowing her to finish her a- levels only delays the inevitable or allows her to run. And then every failed asylum seeker is suddenly enrolled on a lengthy educational course. Where does it end? I have every sympathy with her situation but if her case is over and she has exhausted all appeal rights then yes, she should be removed from the UK.

I must admit I don't have much sympathy for her. Yes it's a terrible situation for her to be in. However it's a situation created entirely by her/her family by choosing to come to the UK illegally. I also get quite cross when people try to exploit asylum rights to bypass the immigration process because all it does is make it harder for those genuine cases.

*Yashika came to Britain in 2011 from Mauritius on a tourist visa to escape domestic violence.

The student arrived with her sister and brother to live with her mother, who had fled in 2009.*

What happened in those 2 years while her mother wasn't there.