Ex-Peterborough chef to be deported despite Home Office offering him £5k compensation for wrongly labelling him a sex offender

Saiful Islam was also falsely accused of assault amid a string of errors made by officials who have spent the last 15 years trying to deport him.

Mr Islam, a victim of modern slavery who was beaten by a former employer while in the UK, came to the country on a valid work permit from Bangladesh in January 2003 and has helped feed Peterborough’s homeless, but he is now set to be sent home despite a senior judge highlighting a series of major errors from the Home Office.

Judge Jackson accepted that the Home Office had tried to deport Mr Islam on false pretences by unlawfully attempting to end his stay in 2005, by refusing to accept he had entered the country legally, by supplying incomplete evidence in court, by destroying part of his file and by wrongly labelling him a criminal

But despite the series of blunders he refused Mr Islam permission for a Judicial Review of the Home Office’s decision to end his right to remain in the UK because he was neither in employment nor in receipt of a valid work permit. This was despite Mr Islam arguing he was unable to work because the Home Office has held onto his passport since 2008.

As a result of last month’s decision in the upper tribunal of the immigration chamber Mr Islam, whose five-year-old daughter Helena was born at Peterborough City Hospital, now faces being sent back to Bangladesh.

The chef, who has been diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication as a result of his legal fight, said he had been treated “worse than a dog”.

He told the Peterborough Telegraph: ”The Home Office’s mistakes have seriously affected my life - mentally and physically and through lost employment.

“If they deport me to Bangladesh then my life is in danger for many reasons. I have debts of nearly £4,000 in the UK, I borrowed that money from relatives and friends in the UK and I spent that money on my immigration battle.

“I have to give them the money back. I promised them if I get my immigration rights then I will pay back their money from my salary.

“I wish to stay in the UK. I feel the UK is my home country. I’ve been in this country for the last 17 years, I respect the law and I have done much good work for the wider society. I’ve done nothing unlawful.”

Mr Islam moved to Peterborough in 2012 and lived in Eastfield Road. During this time he volunteered feeding the homeless at the Brewery Tap car park in Westgate but was unable to work despite having a job offer from a restaurant in Millfield because, he claims, the Home Office had held onto his passport.

The Home Office earlier this year apologised to Mr Islam and offered him £5,000 in compensation, with the department’s numerous blunders including incorrectly putting on Mr Islam’s records that he was a convicted sex offender and had been found guilty of assault.

This is because it had mixed him up with two other people with the same name. The mistake only came to light after Mr Islam fought a long battle to receive a copy of his file.

Similarly, it took the Home Office many years to finally establish that Mr Islam had entered the country legally back in 2003, while it has been rapped for illegally trying to curtail his stay in 2005.

Incredibly, the department also tried to deport him after falsely claiming that he had not received a re-entry stamp on his passport when returning from a visit to Bangladesh.

The stamp was present, but an official failed to show it in court after photocopying the wrong part of his passport.

It was only when Mr Islam received a copy of his passport two years later that he discovered the re-entry stamp was indeed present.

Mr Islam said he has been in court 18 times as he continues to fight his case, now from his new home in Cardiff.

He described the offer of £5,000 in compensation as a “joke,” adding: “I am suffering with depression and various illness because of Home Office employees keeping me as a criminal. So I am looking for my residence status and fair compensation.”

The Home Office said: “We are unable to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”