Analysis: Yashika Bageerathi and the law

Protest against Yashika Bageerathi's deportation Demonstrators in London's Parliament Square highlighted the case

Related Stories

Why was Yashika Bageerathi sent back to Mauritius? The Home Office says the case didn't pass the asylum test.

The law is quite clear that an asylum application must be based on the internationally-agreed criteria of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

That means an applicant needs to show that they need protection from persecution on one of the following grounds:

  • Political opinion
  • Race, religion or nationality
  • Membership of a particular social group that puts them at risk because of the particular situation in the country they are fleeing

This is where the problems started for Yashika Bageerathi. Her - and her family's - application to stay in the UK related to the fact that they were fleeing an abusive relative. On face value, that doesn't appear to be covered by that core of refugee law. It was not designed to end all of human misery, wherever it may be found.

But that's not the whole story - the law is much more nuanced.

It has developed down the years as judges have dealt with specific and complex cases which have forced them to look long and hard at what we mean by asylum and humanitarian protection.

'Social group' test

So while each case has to fit into what appear to be basic constraints of asylum law - it all depends on how you interpret those constraints and the UK's international obligations to care for genuine refugees.

Let's go back to those core tests. One of them is membership of a particular "social group".

The courts have said quite clearly that in certain specific scenarios women can constitute a social group that needs protection under refugee law.

In 1999, the Law Lords issued a landmark judgement in favour of two women from Pakistan, called Shah and Islam.

The women had escaped from terribly violent husbands and argued that if they returned to their home country, they would be accused and convicted in a local sharia court of adultery. They could face either public lashing or stoning. Critically, that court's judgement would give more weight to the claims of their husbands simply because they were men.

The asylum claims were rejected - but the Law Lords said that was wrong.

They ruled that the Pakistani women were part of a social group that was persecuted because they had no means to defend themselves.

In other words, in that specific context, domestic violence and abuse against women warranted refugee protection because the state exposed the women to persecution.

There have been many developments down the years to further expand on this concept - but none of them have ever said that anybody can just come to the UK and get protection because they have a horrible relative.

There has to be some kind of connection between the abuse and how their home country functions - or rather how it doesn't.

Greyer legal area

Now, some cases are in an even greyer area between the letter of the law and the grim realities of a personal situation. This is where a wider and more subjective test comes into play.

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the legal agreement between nations which have declared that they will ensure certain minimum standards of treatment towards people living within their borders.

Those minimum standards also include broadly agreeing not to despatch people to horrible fates overseas.

If a woman fleeing domestic abuse cannot find a way to fit into the refugee criteria, this has sometimes proved to be an avenue open to them.

And in practice, lawyers who work in this field have found courts to be sympathetic if the applicant can convince a judge that they face a really awful fate.

Ministerial discretion

In Yashika Bageerathi's case, judges were not convinced.

There was one final issue in this case: why was the Home Office removing her from the country ahead of her exams?

The Home Office's guidance states that children who are in school and coming to exams should not face removal at that point - even if they may be sent to their home country in the future. Yashika Bageerathi is not a child - she is 19 years old - so the guidance doesn't apply.

And that's why the teenager's supporters put pressure on ministers. They had the discretion to intervene and stop an immigration removal. It was ultimately their decision.

Dominic Casciani, Home affairs correspondent Article written by Dominic Casciani Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 499.

    @483. sarah standen
    " We should support people like her"

    If you want to support people who have no legal right to be in the country (I don't, so it's not "we"), write to the Home Secretary and ask where you send your cheque to fund it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 498.

    This case bewilders me by so many opposing this young woman's rejection of asylum.

    This is a perfect example of someone who is taking advantage of the system at our expense.

    Some people in this country have had bad abusive relationships with nutcases but they don't claim asylum in the US as a result.

    We must remember that we can only save the most in need, and not even a fraction of those!

  • rate this

    Comment number 497.

    No wonder people see the UK as the promised land. Enter the country and then completely ignore the rules and lodge your appeal, at the tax payers' expense. It worked for Abu Hanza for 10 years. I'm glad she's been sent packing. Now let us maintain that tough stance and retain control of our country once more.

  • rate this

    Comment number 496.

    There was really no good reason not to allow her to stay and complete her A levels. On purely humanitarian grounds this was the correct thing to do with ministerial discretion.
    It was an opportunity for government ministers not to be bureaucratic but to do a small amount of good in the life of a young person from another country- bread on the water.
    Sometimes I feel ashamed to be British.

  • rate this

    Comment number 495.

    If people are so keen to keep people here who are not genuine asylum seekers but merely fancy living in the UK how about providing them a room lin your homes, financing them until they are working and paying a refundable bond which you lose if they prove to be a liability? Prepared to finance your lofty beliefs or prefer if we all do it for you?


Comments 5 of 499



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.