Albanian criminal’s deportation from UK stopped as son only liked British chicken nuggets

An has been allowed to remain in Britain partly because his son refuses to eat chicken nuggets available abroad, a tribunal has ruled.

The immigration judge concluded that it would be “unduly harsh” to send the 10-year-old boy back to Albania with his father, acknowledging his apparent sensitivity to certain foods.

The only specific example provided in court was the child’s distaste for the “type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad.”

As a result, the judge upheld the father’s appeal against deportation under the right to family life provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the basis that his removal could have a negative impact on his son, according to The Telegraph.

The case, detailed in court documents, is one of 34,169 outstanding asylum appeals – a five-fold increase compared with the 6,386 pending cases in early 2022.

Many such appeals are lodged on human rights grounds, glueing up government attempts to speed up the removal of who have no legal right to remain in the UK.

The increase in legal challenges also threaten to underminine government efforts to adopt a tough line on immigration in the face of surging support for ’s Reform UK.

The government is reportedly trying to counter suggetions that the UK is soft on illegal migration by cracking down on illegal working.

Data published on Monday indicated that 609 arrests were made for illegal working last month – 73% highter than January 2024. The number of enforcement raids also spiked by 48%, up from 556 to 828.

The Home Office has announced plans to release images and videos showing migrants being deported and placed onto planes as part of the crackdown.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said: “It’s ludicrous that a judge would entertain it. Cases like this make us a laughing stock.

“It’s an insult to the British public that our immigration laws are being abused in such an outrageous way.”

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp added: “This case shows how bogus asylum seekers and foreign criminals are ruthlessly exploiting human rights laws and weak judges to stay in the UK when common sense clearly shows they should be kicked out.”

Sir and his attorney general insisted they will not pull out of the ECHR and that the government is committed to upholding international law.

Albanian national Klevis Disha, 39, entered the UK illegally in 2001 as an unaccompanied 15-year-old, falsely claiming to be from the former Yugoslavia.

He was granted exceptional leave to remain, despite his asylum claim being rejected, and eventually obtained British citizenship in 2007.

Disha met his partner, a fellow Albanian who had also secured UK citizenship, in 2006. The pair have two daughters and a son.

However, in 2017, Disha was jailed for two years after being caught with £250,000 in criminal proceeds at which point then-home secretary Dame Priti Patel ordered his deportation and the revocation of his British citizenship, citing his fraudulent asylum claim.

Disha appealed and was initially successful in blocking his removal during a lower-tier immigration tribunal, with the judge ruling it would be “unduly harsh” to separate him from his son, known only as C.

The case was based on C’s supposed “additional” needs, backed by evidence from a trainee educational psychologist plus testimony from a neighbour and a family friend.

The tribunal was told there was no formal diagnosis of special educational needs, according to the outlet, although he did have an education plan addressing his “emotional regulation, independence, reading and writing”, something which was factored in by the judges at the time of the initial hearing.

Disha’s lawyers claimed the boy, identified only as C, had “sensory difficulties” related to clothing, and certain foods.

The lower-tier tribunal ruled in Disha’s favour, but Judge David Merrigan, a Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge, disagreed, pointing out that the only reason given for why the child could not move to Albania was that he “will not eat the type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad”.

He added: “We are not persuaded that the addition of this sole example approaches anywhere near the level of harshness for a reasonable judge to find it to be ‘unduly’ so.”

The case has now been sent back to a different judge in the lower tribunal to reconsider the decision, with the case ongoing.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Foreign nationals who commit heinous crimes should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain’s streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity.

“Since the election, we’ve removed 2,580 foreign criminals, a 23 per cent increase on the same period 12 months prior.”