Nadra Almas, a Pakistani asylum seeker, has been awarded almost £100,000 after enduring what the courts described as 'outrageous' treatment during her time with the Home Office. The ruling, delivered by the High Court, confirmed the serious breaches of her human rights after she was detained and mistreated, leaving her to feel like 'a criminal' for overstaying her visa.
Almas, who first arrived in the United Kingdom on a student visa back in 2004, argued her case passionately over a lengthy 16-year period, where she continually expressed fears of persecution if she were to return to Pakistan due to her Christian faith. These details emerged during the court proceedings, which also revealed her fight to remain legally within the UK, particularly after her visa expired just five months after her arrival.
Her struggle intensified dramatically when she was taken by Home Office officials in 2018, handcuffed, and detained at the infamous Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre. During her imprisonment, officials indicated to Almas she would be deported, and though she was released two weeks later, the Home Office took nearly three years to grant her refugee status. During this drawn-out process, she was barred from traveling, working, or claiming any benefits, creating enormous strain on her personal and family life.
According to court reports, Almas had lodged six applications between 2005 and 2014 to remain, but these were continually dismissed. It wasn't until 2018 when her son, aged 26, was granted refugee status on similar grounds of religious persecution, throwing additional light on the urgency of her claims but leading to her own detention months later.
When she was detained, the judge found 'numerous breaches' of protocol during her time at Yarl's Wood, citing failures to assess suitable alternatives to her detention. This included her being imprisoned with unknown men, prompting concerns over her safety and well-being. It also forced the court to recognize the 'reckless disregard for her rights' displayed by officials.
High Court Recorder McNeill conveyed her empathy toward Almas's plight, emphasizing the severe impact of her detainment on her mental health. She stated, "She could not travel, she could not move freely, she could not develop her private and family life because her status was uncertain, and she could not work or claim public funds and had to rely on the little support from the asylum system." This encapsulated not just the frosty nature of bureaucracy but also the emotional toll it took on those seeking safety.
The ruling underscored how the rights at stake were foundational to individual liberty, particularly for those like Almas, who expressed genuine fears over their safety if returned to their home country. Recorder McNeill remarked, "The rights at stake were the most basic rights of liberty of the individual," reinforcing the court's responsibility to uphold human dignity.
Despite the Home Office's efforts to appeal the initial judgment claiming the damage award was excessive, Mr. Justice Ritchie dismissed these arguments coherently. He stated, "These breaches were not trivial or minor," affirming the importance of the damages awarded and the court's resolve to rectify the injustices faced by Almas.
Almas’s arduous path toward securing her right to stay and the eventual payout she received is reflective of broader issues concerning asylum seekers and the treatment they often face under immigration policies. The ruling sends out a clear message: the integrity of human rights must be prioritized for individuals with genuine fears of persecution. Through this case, the human stakes of immigration systems come to the fore, reminding us of the stories behind the statistics and the very real consequences when those stories do not get heard.