Man loses right to stay in UK 18 years after first arriving from India

[joebloggs]

No claim under Article 8

A 40-year-old illegal immigrant has lost the latest round of his fight to stay in the UK - nearly 18 years after being told he had no right to remain.

Read more here ..

http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/11791888._/

[Dedworth]

100% illegal - ship him out

[Terpe]

Reads like he did apply Article 8 and ILR :-

.............in March 2006, the man applied for "indefinite leave to remain" under an immigration rule known as the "10 years' continuous lawful residence provision" - and under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to respect to family and private life.

Both of them illegals

He should have kept his head down and not submitted his ILR

[joebloggs]

i meant they refused his claim under article 18, i'm surprised a bit by that having been here so long , and having kids , but then as ded has said both illegals and the kids are not British.

right thing to do, just should have not took 18yrs

yes he should have kept his head down and applied using the 14 YEAR LONG RESIDENCY RULE b4 2012

[Iani]

Let's see - asylum is for people fleeing for their lives or from oppressive regimes under which they might be oppressed.

This guy - name Singh so he's almost certain to be Sikh, one of the mainstream religions in India. India is a democracy where people do that odd thing of going out and electing their government. They are one of the worlds growing economies, whilst on the other hand, the government seems more concerned with spending on military might in hatred of their neighbour and on sending up space missions than lifting their people out of poverty. The UK too spends a lot there and outsources jobs there.

So he's come here and claimed "asylum"

Does something seem a bit wrong here?