http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221353/Youve-got-cat-OK-stay-Britain-officials-tell-Bolivian-immigrant.html#ixzz0UOCRatRZ
Cat exploitation and Illegal immigrants in one story. I blame Evo.
QuoteMigrant facing deportation wins right to stay in Britain... because he's got a cat
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:15 AM on 19th October 2009
* Comments (144)
* Add to My Stories
It may have been one of the least plausible attempts to avoid deportation - but it worked.
An illegal immigrant was allowed to stay in Britain because he had a cat, it was revealed yesterday.
The unnamed Bolivian was spared deportation after he told a court that he and his girlfriend had bought the animal as a pet.
Immigration judges ruled that sending him back home would breach his human rights by interfering with his family life.
The decision by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal caused 'disappointment' at the Home Office and amazement among anti-immigration campaigners, who questioned why the existence of a pet cat could be considered relevant to an immigration case.
Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think tank said the argument over the cat was 'utterly absurd' and reflected badly on the attitudes of judges.
Court papers on the case have kept secret the name of the cat alongside that of the immigrant as part of its privacy procedures.
However one immigration judge, Judith Gleeson, remarked in the official ruling that the cat 'need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice.'
The cat ruling was made by immigration judge James Devittie after the Bolivian submitted evidence that claimed joint ownership of the pet with his girlfriend demonstrated he was settled in Britain and it would break human rights rules to remove him.
The solicitor who represented the Bolivian, Barry O'Leary, told the Sunday Telegraph that the cat was one detail among many in the case.
He said: 'When giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat,' he said. 'It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together.
'The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered.
'They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat.'
Sir Andrew Green said: 'Drawing pets into the consideration of issues of such importance is so utterly absurd that you could not make it up.
'This is symptomatic of the attitude held by many of the judiciary, which is complete disregard for the impact of such decisions on the future of our community.'
Since this is the Daily Mail bashing immigration procedures I refer to the bolded bit and agree. But there is probably more to this. If we had any Bolivaristas here we might have fun with this. I post this just because it is stupid.
Note, written by "Daily Mail Reporter". I sort of suspect that no employee of this slightly less than august newspaper would like to admit to having written this one.
So actually the judge is letting him stay illegally because he's "settled" in, which is still pretty lol but not in the obvious way the story is presented.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2009, 06:49:12 PM
So actually the judge is letting him stay illegally because he's "settled" in, which is still pretty lol but not in the obvious way the story is presented.
Here in norway you can basically guarantee being able to stay if you can have your kids living here for three years since they have acclimatized and would suffer if they had to re-acclimatize when they go back "home". So it's not just a british condition.
Quote from: Viking on October 19, 2009, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2009, 06:49:12 PM
So actually the judge is letting him stay illegally because he's "settled" in, which is still pretty lol but not in the obvious way the story is presented.
Here in norway you can basically guarantee being able to stay if you can have your kids living here for three years since they have acclimatized and would suffer if they had to re-acclimatize when they go back "home". So it's not just a british condition.
Kids are not cats, though.
My immediate reaction to the decision - "what a crock..."
However, there must be more reasons for the judge to have agreed to this petition than just the facts as stated by the Daily Mail, so I shall withhold judgement for now.
Are the cats old enough to consent?
I like this story. The law should not come in the way of a man and his cat.
Sounds like the judge was totally pussy-whipped. :P
Quote from: VikingHow to earn the hate of Slargos and CdM
With all due respect, I don't need any pointers. I'm rather expert in the field.