uses a gym and has made friends in Scotland.
Amir Beheshti, 40, has been repeatedly turned down for refugee status. But he claims his human right to a private life would be violated if he were deported back to Iran.
Judges have ruled there is no credible evidence Beheshti would suffer if he were returned to Iran. But a controversial legal ruling means he will be allowed to continue living rent-free in his flat in Glasgow and to receive a weekly welfare payment of $56.
The Express of London says the lengthy case, which has already cost the public purse tens of thousands of dollars, has sparked outrage.
Emma Boon of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “If the occasional trip to the gym is enough to allow a failed asylum seeker to appeal his deportation, then taxpayers will wonder who can’t claim a right to stay.”
Beheshti was smuggled into Dover in a truck in 2005, claiming his father’s pro-Jewish sympathies put him in danger. His asylum application was rejected, as were two appeals.
He moved to Glasgow and appealed to another court. In June 2009, Lord Osborne ruled he had failed to provide ‘credible’ evidence that he would face any persecution or disadvantage if sent back to Iran.
Technically, he should then have been deported, but he tried another appeal on another basis.
When that was rejected, he went back to the court he had first tried in Glasgow. Earlier this month, Lord Glennie issued a written judgment in which he referred the case back to Home Secretary Theresa May.
That judgment said: “He had integrated well within the Glasgow community, had a large network of friends, most of whom were Scottish, and socialized with those friends at the gymnasium, at five-a-side football, in coffee shops, at college, in the library and at their homes.”
Beheshti said: “I’ve made a home for myself here. After five years, usually you get citizenship for a country. I’ve been here more than that. I think it’s my right to stay.”
A spokesman at the UK Border Agency said: “We have been seeking to remove this individual, but we have been asked by the courts to look again at this case.”
