Mourad Ayadi v Home Office: 20 years' residence overturns refusal despite false ID use

An Algerian man who lived in the United Kingdom illegally for more than two decades, working under false identities for much of that time, has succeeded in his appeal against the Home Office's refusal of his human rights claim, after the First-tier Tribunal found he had proved twenty years' continuous residence and that his use of false documents did not justify refusal on suitability grounds.

Mourad Ayadi entered the United Kingdom by lorry on 14 June 2002 and did not come to the attention of the authorities until September 2017, when he was served with notice of liability to removal. He was detained under immigration powers in February 2023 and again served with removal notices, before applying for leave to remain on human rights grounds in May 2023, relying on his long residence and, in the alternative, the significant obstacles he said he would face reintegrating in Algeria.

The Home Office refused the application, citing paragraph S-LTR.1.6 of Appendix FM, which allows refusal where a person's presence is not conducive to the public good, on the basis that Mr Ayadi had used a false French identity document. It also found he had failed to provide sufficient evidence of twenty years' continuous residence and that the documentary evidence was inconsistent with his account.

Mr Ayadi accepted before the tribunal that he had used two aliases and associated false documents between 2003 and 2017, but said he had used them only to obtain employment and never to cross the UK border. Judge Swaney accepted this evidence, which the Home Office did not challenge, and went on to assess the suitability refusal against the Home Office's own guidance on non-conducive grounds. The judge found no evidence that the Home Office had considered what threat, if any, Mr Ayadi posed to the public, nor that it had carried out any balancing exercise between the seriousness of his conduct and factors in his favour, as its guidance required.

Weighing those factors herself, the judge noted that Mr Ayadi had declared both aliases in his application rather than concealing them, had no criminal convictions, had paid tax and national insurance throughout his employment, and had completed relevant health and safety training. While use of false documents was undoubtedly a serious matter, she was not satisfied that refusal on suitability grounds was proportionate or reasonable in his case.

On residence, the judge heard evidence from Mr Ayadi, his brother, a family friend and his sister-in-law, alongside documentary evidence including college enrolment records, employment history, medical records and photographs spanning the claimed period. Although there were gaps in the documentary record and some inconsistencies concerning his addresses at various times, the judge found the witness evidence consistent and credible throughout, and concluded that Mr Ayadi had established continuous residence in the UK since 2002, satisfying the twenty year requirement under paragraph PL5.1(a) of Appendix Private Life.

Having found that Mr Ayadi met the requirements of the Rules, the judge applied the Court of Appeal's guidance in TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, holding that this was positively determinative of his wider Article 8 claim. The Home Office's decision was therefore found to be a disproportionate interference with his right to private and family life, and unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In the judge's judgement, the appeal was allowed on human rights grounds. No fee award was made, as no fee had been paid.