A Pakistani national convicted of multiple child s*xual offences in the UK has won a legal battle to avoid deportation, claiming he would face persecution if returned to his home country.
Jamil Ahmed, who has lived in Scotland since 2002, argued before an immigration tribunal that his crimes have been widely reported in Pakistani media, potentially putting him at risk of prosecution, religious retaliation, or even violence. He claimed that returning to Pakistan would endanger his life and violate his human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly his right to family life.
Ahmed was first convicted in 2008 for engaging in unlawful s*xual intercourse with a teenage girl, and again in 2013 for similar offences, including the s*xual assault of another teenager. He was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and placed on the S*x Offenders Register indefinitely. Despite a deportation order issued after his second conviction, he has remained in the UK, fighting removal for nearly a decade.
In 2014, then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered his immediate deportation, stating that any future appeals should be conducted from outside the UK. Ahmed challenged the decision, claiming deportation would separate him from his wife and children in Britain.
At a recent hearing before the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber in Edinburgh, Ahmed argued that media coverage of his convictions had spread to Pakistan and resulted in threats to his safety.
He cited reports from newspapers such as the Daily Kashmir News, as well as the distribution of leaflets featuring his photograph and allegations, supposedly circulated by extremists. He also claimed a fatwa had been issued against him, and that his father had been shot and killed by armed men searching for him.
To support his claims, Ahmed called Pakistani legal expert Asad Ali Khan as a witness. Khan testified that the materials were consistent with propaganda often used in Pakistan to target individuals with legal troubles abroad, and warned that Ahmed would be at serious risk if deported.
Although Ahmed lost his previous appeal in 2024, the Upper Tribunal has now ruled that the earlier judge failed to properly evaluate key evidence, including testimony from Ahmed’s wife and the expert witness, as well as documents related to the case. Tribunal Judge Jeremy Rintoul concluded that the earlier decision lacked “sustainable conclusions” and ordered the case to be reheard.
The Home Office has expressed skepticism about the authenticity of the reported threats and newspaper articles, but the latest ruling means that Ahmed’s deportation will remain on hold until a new decision is made.
The case continues to draw public criticism, particularly due to Ahmed’s criminal record and the length of time he has avoided removal. Despite having lost two prior appeals, this recent legal development has reignited debate over the balance between public safety and human rights protections in the UK’s immigration system.
