June 20, 2025
An Iranian man facing deportation from the UK was initially allowed to remain due to a judge’s ruling that his deportation would have an “unduly harsh” impact on his young son, as it would prevent him from being involved in his son’s life, including cutting his hair.
However, this decision has since been appealed and overturned, with the case sent for a rehearing.
The man’s name was withheld by the court under privacy laws. The court said his asylum case has been underway for more than 20 years, in part because he disappeared into British society and was not found by the authorities until a decade later.
A first-tier tribunal judge ruled that deporting the Iranian man would be detrimental to his three-year-old son, citing the importance of the father’s role in the child’s life, which included activities like cutting his hair and playing with him.
The judge emphasized that such important relationships for a young child “cannot be easily satisfied remotely,” and specifically mentioned the inability to cut hair remotely as a factor.
The judge acknowledged the man’s criminal record and immigration history, but determined that the impact on the child outweighed these factors, particularly given the close relationship between father and son.
The Home Office (interior ministry) appealed the decision, arguing that the judge had not adequately demonstrated the “unduly harsh consequences” on the family and that the man’s deportation was in the public interest.
An upper tribunal judge then upheld the Home Office’s appeal, stating that the first-tier tribunal judge had not provided sufficient justification for the ruling of “unduly harsh consequences” on the child.
The upper tribunal judge also highlighted the man’s criminal record and history of absconding from immigration control as factors that needed to be considered.
The case has now been ordered to be reheard, requiring a more thorough assessment of the balance between the man’s right to family life and the public interest in his deportation.
This case sparked public debate and criticism, with some questioning the weight given to family life over public safety and immigration control.
It also highlighted the complexities of applying Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—which protects the right to family and private life— in deportation cases.
The outcome of the rehearing will determine whether the man will ultimately be allowed to remain in the UK or deported to Iran.
The man arrived in Britain in July 2004 and applied for asylum. In July 2008, he was convicted of using a fake ID and sentenced to 12 months in jail. He was supposed to be deported on his release, but he appealed to the Home Office, which eventually said that nothing in his appeal changed anything and he remained subject to deportation. At that point, he just disappeared.
The father and the boy’s mother are not married and do not live together. The boy lives with the mother, who is the primary care-giver, but the Iranian father was said to visit the child almost daily.
