She argued her political activism, combined with her high profile, made deportation dangerous.
A demonstration against the Nigerian government’s Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) (Image: Getty)
A Nigerian woman who claims her “celebrity status” as a model and actress would put her at risk if returned home has won a fresh asylum hearing after an immigration judge ruled key facts were overlooked. The unnamed appellant, known as OO in court papers, lodged a human rights claim to remain in the UK.
She argued her political activism—coordinating and attending demonstrations to disband Nigeria’s Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), a federal police unit accused of widespread rights abuses—combined with her high profile, made deportation dangerous. The court was told: “The consequent risk to her safety is enhanced by the fact that she is a well-known model and actress in Nigeria and the daughter of a local politician.”
OO also claimed “celebrity status” in Nigeria, though her accounts were “vague and limited,” according to court documents.
She applied for asylum in November 2021 after entering on a visitor visa. The Home Office refused in November 2023, citing lies about her salary on the visa application, reported the Telegraph.
OO appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, but the dismissal prompted a challenge to the Upper Tribunal. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge David Kelly ruled the case needed rehearing, as the facts had not been fully considered.
Judge Kelly accepted that OO had not qualified as a vulnerable witness and that the previous judge may have doubted her testimony, but these were insufficient to uphold the refusal. He identified an error of law in the overall analysis of the evidence.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood (Image: Getty)
The claim was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing before a different judge.
Judge Kelly wrote: “It seems to me to be axiomatic that a fact-finder must not reach his or her conclusion before surveying all the evidence relevant thereto.”
He added: “It may have been, for example, that having considered the detail of the external evidence concerning the EndSARS protests, the judge would have concluded that material aspects of that evidence were inconsistent with [OO’s] account of them, thereby undermining the overall credibility of her claim.”
Judge Kelly continued: “On the other hand, the judge may have concluded that the details contained within the external evidence supported the plausibility of her account of events, thereby enhancing its overall credibility.”
He concluded: “Given that the judge did not conduct this exercise, it is impossible now to say that the error of law I have identified was immaterial to the outcome of the appeal. I have accordingly concluded that the judge’s findings must be set aside in their entirety and the matter remitted for a complete rehearing.”
The ruling blocks OO’s removal pending the new hearing.
It comes after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced major asylum reforms, which include making refugee status temporary and granting ministers the power to return migrants once their home country is deemed safe.
Ms Mahmood is overhauling immigration appeals by replacing judges with adjudicators, while limiting illegal migrants and foreign offenders’ ability to exploit human rights laws to fight deportation.
The changes, unveiled recently, aim to revamp the appeals process amid a rise in claims.
