Tweet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...f-pet-cat.html
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
9:45PM BST 17 Oct 2009
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.
Lawyers for the Home Secretary were aghast at the decision by James Devittie, an immigration judge, to allow the immigrant to stay in Britain. They lodged an appeal, but their case was again rejected.
The Bolivian's identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.................
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
9:45PM BST 17 Oct 2009
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.
Lawyers for the Home Secretary were aghast at the decision by James Devittie, an immigration judge, to allow the immigrant to stay in Britain. They lodged an appeal, but their case was again rejected.
The Bolivian's identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.................
Comment