to wonder whether those who object to the deportation...

[dolphinsandwhales]

of the 19 year old who claimed asylum from dv after overstaying a tourist visa would like to extend asylum offers to all victims of dv worldwide who live in safe countries?

The case seems ridiculous to me, asylum should be granted to those in genuine cases of persecution etc, Mauritius is not a country that persecutes those in fear of dv. I wonder whether the teachers involved in trying to prevent the deportation would mind losing some pension to pay for all the increased asylum seekers who are fleeing safe countries?

Re proof. Yes I do know that ta.

But this is a different kettle of fish to a dv case here. It's very common in asylum applications to ask for some kind of evidence and therefore it wouldn't be untoward in this case to ask why the Mauritian authorities had not applied the law.

Nadia if you're going to accuse posters of racism, it's bad form to do it on this thread, perhaps you should do it on your original thread where they have right of reply.

I think it's perfectly possible to feel sorry for an individual and regret the circumstances of her case, while at the same time believing the law on asylum-seeking on the basis of DV should be upheld. Of course I feel desperately sorry for the young woman and feel a common-sense approach would have given her enough time to sit her exams. But the law is the law. It's a fairly blunt instrument.

I get that it's the law. I just wish it was applied to career criminals, violent thugs and tax evaders who are here illegally with the same tenacity that's been used towards a teenager.

And yes, I think a common sense approach of letting her sit the exams and then saying she would have to leave afterwards and apply for entry as a student would have carried a lot of weight. Presumably Teresa May weighed that up and decided taking a hard line and thus appealing to the pro-UKIP types was more beneficial.

Well many of us have lost bits of our pension and see our tax too spent on more nefarious things.

Not sure that argument holds water to be honest because no two people will agree upon what constitutes the right thing to spend it on.

What makes you think it isn't? How regularly do we see news items where the Home Secretary has to bemoan the fact that despite their best efforts and huge expense in court, a judge has ruled for whatever reason that Mr Criminal can stay? Answer - quite a bit, actually. It's a perception that's oddly enough actually caused by that very press coverage, with people failing to spot that the judiciary's often very liberal interpretation of the law plays a huge role. The government have long been making efforts to reduce legal avenues for such people, again at great expense. The media reports very few routine deportations of serious criminals that regularly take place. Let's be honest, just because the system is still far from perfect doesn't mean that there isn't focus on taking those who cause our society harm away from it. The facts say otherwise - there is no either/or choice here.

The last was in response to everything.

oh and nadia I stand by comments on the previous thread r.e. her appearance and age and trust me I'm not racist.
I work with a local charity providing food and furniture for assylum.seekers so hopefully can claim a little knowledge on the issue of individuals who seek assylum.
And yes your fuck off on your last thread was unedifying.
Apols op for derailing.

The home office bought up eight rows of seats and sent five security guards with her. She was told not to talk to people, answer her phone, scream or cry.

Clearly far cheaper than letting her sit her exams.

Oh, gawds. To everything on this thread. And the other one.

She has not been deported. She has been removed. There is an enormous difference (deportation is what we do to criminals and it prevents them from returning ever again, removal at least in theory means that if she were to apply for a valid visa from abroad there would be no bar to her returning.)

It was always unlikely that she would be granted asylum because Mauritius is on what's known as the "white list" of safe countries, where the claim is presumed to be completely unfounded unless they can prove otherwise.

Having said that,

• Everyone has the right to claim asylum. Even if it is objectively unfounded, many people have a subjective belief that they are at risk. It is unfair and untrue to accuse all of these people of playing the system.

DV is* a reason for asylum and has been since a case called Shah & Islam in 2004 (off the top of my head, it was around then).

• Having to claim in the first safe country you get to means the first safe country you land in. It does not require asylum seekers to parachute out of an aeroplane over France, nor to travel by foot or by donkey to the geographically closest country. The rule is there to prevent 'window shopping' with multiple claims around Europe.

• Finally and perhaps most importantly, having a crappy asylum claim is grounds only for removal, not hostility. It would not have hurt the Home Office to allow her to complete her A level exams. Following the Swedish model it may even have been possible to arrange a voluntary return after her A levels (migrants respond best to discussion, not dawn raids, who'd a thunk it?) Instead of which they get a PR disaster and a very expensive prolonged stay in Yarls Wood.

Apologies for the long post. I work in immigration / asylum and I get frustrated at the myths that are so often believed.

Thanks Posy

It is good to get an informed view. My son is interested in your profession and he has been watching this case with great interest.

The other thing to note is that as the government slowly close down all the student and work routes to those who aren't already loaded, it is inevitable that there will be an increase in crappy asylum claims, particularly from bright people from countries where there is persecution. That's just human nature.

For those asking about whether she could get a student visa, the answer is almost certainly no because

a) she would have to apply from abroad anyway, it is not permitted to 'switch' which would put a big hole in her studies;

b) to obtain a student visa her college has to be registered with UKBA and has to jump through a lot of hoops which many below-degree-level colleges are not willing to do;

c) she would not be allowed to study at a state funded college so she would have to go private;

d) (and this is the biggie) she would need to show that she has held £8,100 plus her first year's tuition fees (usually another few thousand) in her bank account for at least 28 days.

This is just unmanageable to most bright foreign students.

Latest stats show overseas applications to UK universities are down too. The overall trend is not good.

Yes your right it is a waste of governement money-money that could have been spent on the many people in this country who are really struggling and who are not here illegally.

Right she was deported. We need to toughen up

I hope she is able to make a good life for herself at home and that her family join her very soon.

PosyFossilsShoes Thu 03-Apr-14 11:14:45

Thank you very much for that post. As mignonette said, it's very useful to have someone with a background in this area bring some information to the debate.

I ask again if this will damage the ability of child asylum seekers to receive a standard UK education until such a date as their claim is rejected and their removal arranged?

Because if everyone starts using being in the middle of a school year/about to take exams (which is every school year from age 14 up) to delay removal then I suspect the goverment will try to change the law such that asylum seekers can't be entered for exams or something else unfair to refugees with a case that meets the UK standard.

I can see that its hard for her, and she has my sympathies as she presumably didn't have much choice in her move, but we can't make exceptions for every family.

I don't think it would Mines - I think that would contravene the UK's obligations to minor asylum seekers.

Nicky & mignonette, thank you :)

UncleT Actually my point was to both Yashika AND the Home Secretary. The reason Qatada bid failed first time round is because Theresa May didn't follow the correct legal procedure. If she had have done. He'd have been back on the original plane. It was contrary to the daily fails hysterics nothing to do with his human rights and everything to do with May (not) following the correct legal procedure. But to me the main reason a these bids are failing for want of A better word is the constant pressure on immigration. Yashika being sent back without her mother (apparently they wouldn't let her contact her family the night she landed) and the death of Christine case. They aren't just one off tragic examples. This is what a tough immigration policy looks like. When they are that scared of being slated by the media etc they end up doing a rushed haphazard job and we have results like this. I would be interested to know how many British citizens are deported back here though. I know of one that was deported back from Germany only recently.

Posy I thought Yarls Wood was legally dubious for a while but they still seem to be managing to keep it open. I can't see that finishing an education could become a reason for appeal without repurcusions either through that being explicitly banned or through a change in how education is provided for asylum seekers (only at Yarl's Wood and similar maybe?)

How was she enrolled at college if she was here illegally?