Pakistani asylum seeker wins £100,000 for being "treated like a criminal" due to visa overstay in Britain

A Pakistani woman was awarded almost £100,000 in compensation after being “treated like a criminal” for overstaying in Britain due to an expired visa.

Nadra Almas, according to the Telegraph, arrived in Britain on a student visa in 2004. She faced a 16-year-long legal battle for staying in the UK after her visa expired.

As per the media reports, she sought asylum in the UK, citing fears of persecution in Pakistan due to her Christian faith.

In 2018, she was handcuffed and detained by the Home Office for deportation, but she was released after interference from the High Court.

Read: 28,000 Pakistanis requested asylum in EU in a year: report

The government then took almost three years to grant her refugee status, during which time she was not allowed to travel or work.

After years of legal contention, she won the compensation after claiming that the treatment she received breached her human rights. 

During this period, she relied on friends and family, stating that the situation “undermined her self-esteem and caused her embarrassment.”

The court was told that she had arrived in Britain on a student visa in 2004, which expired five months later. Despite this, she remained in the country.

She was served with a notice of removal in February 2008, despite having made consecutive applications to stay in the UK. Between 2005 and 2014, she submitted at least six applications.

In 2015, the court heard that Ms Almas’s asylum claim was refused as “clearly unfounded,” but she applied again two months later.

Read: National security: Pakistan bans issuing passports to asylum seekers abroad

In 2018, her son, who was 26 at the time, was granted refugee status on the same grounds on which she had applied.

Months later, she was handcuffed, detained, and imprisoned in a room with two men she did not know.

“She was informed that she could not work or run a business, had to live at a specified address, and had to report.”

The court found “numerous breaches in the process, including a failure to carry out the necessary consideration of alternatives to locking her up.”

“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,” the judge said.

After lodging another claim to stay in Britain, she was released but under restrictions.

Nearly three years later, the Home Office was ordered to approve her refugee status.

The damages awarded were deemed appropriate by the court.