Theresa May's immigrant cat claim rejected

Wesley Johnson
Tuesday 04 October 2011 15:59
Comments

Catgate was the talk of the Tory party conference today as Theresa May cited the case of an illegal immigrant she claimed could not be deported because of a pet cat.

The Home Secretary used the case as an example of the problems caused by "misinterpretation" of provisions in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a family life.

But Mrs May's claims were refuted by a spokeswoman for the Judicial Office, which represents senior judges, who said the ruling in the case had nothing to do with the cat, reportedly called Maya.

The case at the centre of the row, which was quickly dubbed Catgate, involved an immigrant facing deportation from Britain who cited ownership of a pet cat with his girlfriend as part of his legal battle to stay in the country three years ago.

The man, a Bolivian who came to the UK as a student, gave cat ownership as one of "many details" to prove the long-term nature of his relationship, his solicitor Barry O'Leary said when the case first came to light in October 2009.

But the solicitor insisted that his client had "never" argued that he should be allowed to stay on the grounds of the cat. Nor had he been allowed to stay because of this, he said.

The Home Office had appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against a judgment allowing the man to stay in the country.

Mr O'Leary said at the time: "We were never arguing on the basis that the cat was material. We argued that there is a Home Office policy they should have applied in this case because of the long term nature of the couple's relationship.

"The immigration judge found that was the reason the appeal should be allowed."

But giving her judgment against the Home Office appeal, senior immigration judge Judith Gleeson joked that the cat "need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice".

The determination also referred to the "inappropriate weight placed on the appellant having to leave behind not only his partner but also their joint cat" but added that, "more significantly" the Home Secretary "argued that the Immigration Judge had erred in law in applying a withdrawn policy which no longer applied at the date of decision".

Neither the man, nor his cat, were named in the judgment, delivered in December 2008.

Today, a spokeswoman for the Judicial Office reissued the statement which it first released two years ago, denying the cat's role in the decision.

"This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK," she said.

"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

PA

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in