I.

Home Office accused of ‘abusing’ section of Immigration Act designed to

tackle terrorism

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/06/at-least-1000-highly-skilled-
migrants-wrongly-face-deportation-experts-reveal

II. General information about the chosen public service

Type Home Office: UK Government

Industry Social Protection

Predecessor(s) UK Government

Founded 27 March 1782

Founder(s) United Kingdom Government
Headquarters 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Area served UK
Key people Sajid Javid, Home Secretary
Products Laws and orders
police, fire and rescue services, visas and immigration and the
Services
Security Service (MI5)
Employees civil servants is 408,010

III. At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK
are wrongly facing deportation under a section of the Immigration Act designed in part to tackle
terrorists and individuals judged to be a threat to national security, MPs and experts have said.

In the latest scandal to hit the Home Office after the Windrush crisis, a range of MPs and
immigration experts have criticised the use of the controversial section 322(5) of the act, with
two saying the crisis-hit department is truly wicked and abusing its power.

Experts say the highly skilled workers – including teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers and IT
professionals – are being refused ILR after being accused of lying in their applications either for
making minor and legal amendments to their tax records, or having discrepancies in declared
income.

In one case, the applicant’s tax returns were scrutinised by three different appeal courts who had
found no evidence of any irregularities. The same figures are nevertheless used as the basis for a
322(5) refusal because of basic tax errors allegedly made by the Home Office itself.
Highly Skilled Migrants is a support group that represents over 600 workers and says it is in
contact with over 400 more, most of whom are facing deportation under section 322(5), with the
rest still waiting for a decision by the Home Office. Aditi Bhardwaj, one of the organisers, said
the group has raised about £40,000 to challenge the Home Office in the courts.

Saleem Dadabhoy, a scion of one of the wealthiest families in Pakistan, is facing deportation
under section 322(5) despite three different appeal courts having scrutinised his accounts and
finding no evidence of any irregularities, and a court of appeal judge having ruled that he is
trustworthy and credible. His deportation would directly lead to the loss of 20 jobs, all held by
British citizens, and the closure of a British company worth £1.5m.

Dadabhoy’s lawyer says the Home Office has made two basic accounting errors, comparing his
client’s gross income to his net income, and comparing his tax return from an April to April tax
year to a return from his December to December accounting year. They have used the inevitable
discrepancy in income as evidence that he has submitted inaccurate figures.

The Home Office claims the discrepancies in an ILR applicant’s tax returns are evidence that the
applicant has deliberately provided false information, giving it the right to trigger its
discretionary powers of paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Act, a section designed to tackle
criminals and those judged to be a threat to national security.

The controversial paragraph comes with devastating conditions. Migrants immediately become
ineligible for any other UK visa. Many are given just 14 days to leave the UK, while others are
allowed to stay and fight their cases but not to work.

In addition, people deported under the terrorism-associated paragraph will have that permanently
marked on their passports, making it highly unlikely they will ever get a visa to visit or work
anywhere else in the world..

IV. Author’s comments: based on expert’s sayings, the author believes the measures taken
by the Home Office are an abuse, that the Home Office does not give credible reason for their
decision, and that people with good professional positions are being departed for no concrete
reason and even leaves a mark on the persons’ background even though they worked legally and
earned billions.
 1. Is it reasonable for the UK Home Office to take the measures of deportation?
 2. Are the measures moral?
 3. What would be the right way for the Home Office to make decisions?