The officially unreported judgment which emerged on Thursday reveals the unnamed student, aged 33, had been living in a "strong relationship" for four years with his gay partner who is settled in Britain...
The immigration ruling makes clear the judge considered the dying father of the Bolivian student's partner far more important than their joint ownership of Maya the cat in deciding the case.
The senior immigration judge, JR Devittie, regarded evidence from friends and the partner's brothers as to the quality of relationship as "persuasive and telling".
The original ruling shows that the student overstayed his visa and was issued with a removal notice after being arrested for shoplifting. He was not charged with the offence. The detailed ruling shows the evidence about the cat was only introduced by a witness.
While sources close to May have stressed this reference to the cat, they have not quoted the judge's conclusion that the evidence from friends, relatives and photographs of family occasions had "amply demonstrated" the quality and strength of their relationship. "The evidence shows the appellant is well integrated into the larger family his partner has with his siblings and parents. He attends family functions with his partner and is regarded as a member of the family."
He also rejected the Home Office's contention that they could both simply go and live in Bolivia, pointing out that would not be reasonable given that his partner's father was 'in a condition that he was not expected to recover from' and the family, including the Bolivian student had collectively decided to support him.
The Home Office appealed Devittie's decision claiming it had placed "an inappropriate weight on the Bolivian student having to leave behind not only his partner but also his joint cat." The appeal judge, senior immigration judge Gleeson, does not seem to have taken this seriously and says that the Home Office claim that Devittie had made a mistake in law by applying a policy that had already been withdrawn was more significant.
When the case was heard on 1 December 2008 Gleeson dismissed the appeal saying the immigration authorities had overlooked their own procedures for dealing with unmarried partners of a person present or settled in the UK.
From The Guardian - based on a statement by the judicial communications office "issued with the full authority of the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, which said the Home Office was wrong."
The man - named elsewhere as Ranzo Avila, now 36 - had argued his right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he had been with his boyfriend for four years.
The race is now on to see if it's The Sun, The Daily Express or The Daily Mail who will be the first to notice that the Bolivian cat lover who wasn't deported is - and I'm not making this up - a gay!
If only Conservative Party conference had heard that bit.
Send 'im back!!!!
According to the Daily Telegraph: "Mr Avila is still with his partner and is eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in Britain when his current leave comes up for renewal next year. If granted it paves the way for him to apply for British citizenship."
• Here's the 2009 Daily Telegraph piece that started Cat-gate;
'Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat'
The DT presumed that the anonymous man was heterosexual; "An immigrant who was about to be deported from Britain has won a legal battle to remain in the country – partly because he and his girlfriend had bought a pet cat."
Posts
