Illegal migrant allowed to stay because he criticised his government on social media
A Zimbabwean man who entered Britain illegally nearly two decades ago has been granted permission to remain after judges ruled his opposition activism—including social media posts condemning his home government—could put him at risk if deported.
The case, revealed in court documents, highlights ongoing tensions in the UK’s asylum system, where foreign nationals facing removal have successfully argued that their political activities abroad—sometimes undertaken after their initial claims were rejected—make them targets for persecution.
From Illegal Worker to Opposition Activist
The unnamed Zimbabwean arrived in the UK in 2005 but was later caught working with false documents. When authorities moved to deport him, he claimed asylum, arguing he faced persecution due to his political affiliations.
His initial application was rejected in 2008, with a tribunal ruling his involvement in Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was at the “very lowest level” and unlikely to draw government attention. The judge dismissed his activism as a “device” to strengthen his asylum bid.
Yet instead of leaving, the man remained in Britain and continued legal challenges. In 2022, he joined the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC)—a successor to the MDC—and became vice-treasurer of his local branch. He also spoke at protests, appeared on the party’s Facebook page, and posted criticism of Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF government.
New Tribunal, New Ruling
Last year, a First-tier Tribunal accepted his renewed asylum claim, ruling that his “perceived political opinion” now put him at risk. However, the Home Office appealed, arguing his CCC membership was “self-serving” and his promotion to vice-treasurer was merely a tactic to avoid deportation.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge David Merrigan acknowledged doubts about the man’s genuine political commitment but noted that if he were not truly engaged, he could simply delete his social media and dissociate from the CCC. Since he hadn’t, the judge ruled his case should be reheard—effectively allowing him to stay in the UK for now.
Broader Implications for UK Asylum Policy
This case is the latest in a series where foreign nationals facing removal have leveraged political activity—sometimes adopted late in the process—to secure their stay.
The government is now seeking to tighten asylum rules, making it harder for judges to block deportations under Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 8 (right to family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Critics argue that such cases expose loopholes in the system, where failed asylum seekers can prolong their stay by engaging in activism after their initial rejections. Supporters, however, insist that even late-blooming political involvement can create real risks if individuals are returned to repressive regimes.
What Happens Next?
The case will now return to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing. If judges uphold the decision, the Zimbabwean man could secure permanent asylum—despite entering the UK illegally and being denied protection for years.
The outcome may set a precedent for similar cases, raising questions about how the UK assesses the credibility of late-stage political asylum claims—and whether the system inadvertently rewards strategic activism over genuine persecution.
For now, the man remains in Britain, his fate hinging on whether judges believe his opposition role is sincere—or simply a last-ditch bid to avoid deportation.