A Nigerian fraudster convicted for stealing Covid Bounce-Back loans has avoided deportation because two of his children have autism.

Olufemi Adenyi Ojaleye, who was jailed for seven years for the sophisticated fraud, won his appeal against deportation on human rights grounds.

Lawyers claimed deporting him to Nigeria would have ?unduly harsh consequences for his children? because two of them have autism and ?very significant additional needs?.

His appeal was approved despite the Home Office claiming the effect of his deportation would not have been ?materially different? for his children because he was already separated from them in prison.

The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where failed asylum seekers or convicted foreign criminals have attempted to halt their deportations, often by claiming breaches of their human rights.

There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour?s efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants.

The Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was told Ojaleye played ?a leading role in a sophisticated fraud? which saw him profiting from the Covid-related Bounce Back loan scheme.

It was introduced in 2020 to support businesses affected by Covid-19, helping small and medium-sized businesses to borrow between ?2,000 and ?50,000 at a low interest rate.

Ojaleye, who has lived in the UK since arriving as a visitor in 2002, was jailed for seven years, and the Home Office subsequently decided to deport him to Nigeria, which he last visited in 2004.

His appeal against the decision was approved by a first-tier tribunal in November which ruled his children?s needs outweighed the public interest in deporting him before being challenged by the Home Office. The UTT has now upheld the original tribunal?s decision.

The UTT heard a statement from the specialist school attended by his children which said their autism impacts ?every aspect of [their] daily life? and they ?need support with even the smallest tasks such as dressing, eating, and toileting?.

Ojaleye was said to speak to his children ?where possible on a daily basis? and they visit him in prison.

If Ojaleye was deported, their mother considered ?travelling to Nigeria to visit him would be impossible? because of the children?s needs, the upper tribunal heard.

The tribunal was told that she already found life hard with Ojaleye in prison, that she was ?drained both emotionally and financially? and was suffering breakdowns.

The Home Office argued the consequences of Ojaleye?s deportation for his children were ?simply not harsh enough to meet the high threshold necessary to outweigh the public interest in deportation?.

It also claimed the original tribunal had failed to ?take into account the nature and seriousness of the appellant?s offending?, according to the court documents.

However, Elizabeth Ruddick, an Upper Tribunal judge, upheld the original decision which she said ?contains no material error of law? (The Telegraph, UK)

Update news