A dramatic legal battle over deportation has taken a new turn as the UK Upper Tribunal overturned a previous ruling that had protected Olutobi Ogunbawo, a 43-year-old Nigerian national, from deportation based on questionable claims about IVF treatment availability in Nigeria. The case has highlighted the intersection of immigration law, medical claims, and the burden of proof in deportation proceedings.
The controversy centers around Ogunbawo, who was convicted in 2019 for immigration-related offenses, including conspiring to facilitate unlawful immigration by arranging for a British citizen to falsely claim paternity of his child. After serving a three-year prison sentence, his deportation case became entangled in a complex web of claims regarding fertility treatment accessibility.
The case took an unusual turn when Ogunbawo’s wife, Maria Adesanya, successfully argued before a first-tier tribunal in January 2023 that deporting her husband would effectively end their chances of having a child. Her testimony, claiming that IVF treatment was completely unavailable in Nigeria, formed the cornerstone of their defense and initially convinced Judge Malone to block the deportation order.
However, the secretary of state for the home department challenged this decision, bringing the case before the Upper Tribunal for review. In a November 4, 2024 ruling, the higher court found fundamental flaws in the original judgment, particularly regarding the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims about IVF availability in Nigeria.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision highlighted a critical oversight in the original proceedings: the acceptance of personal testimony without any independent verification. The court noted that even a basic internet search would have revealed the existence of IVF services in Nigeria, directly contradicting Maria’s claims. This revelation cast significant doubt on the credibility of the couple’s primary argument against deportation.
In their detailed ruling, the tribunal emphasized the distinction between subjective beliefs and objective facts, pointing out that Judge Malone had failed to investigate how Maria had formed her conclusions about IVF availability in Nigeria. The judgment questioned whether any actual research or attempts to contact Nigerian medical facilities had been made before making such sweeping claims about the absence of fertility treatments.
The case has exposed potential weaknesses in the immigration appeal process, particularly regarding the verification of medical claims. The Upper Tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of supporting personal testimony with objective evidence, especially when such claims form the basis for significant legal decisions.
The Secretary of State’s successful appeal has resulted in the complete setting aside of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. The case will now be remitted to a different judge for fresh consideration, explicitly excluding Judge Malone from presiding over the new hearing. This development marks a significant setback for the couple’s efforts to prevent Ogunbawo’s deportation.
This case has broader implications for immigration appeals, particularly those involving medical treatment availability in other countries. It serves as a reminder that courts require more than personal assertions when making determinations that could impact deportation decisions, especially when such claims are easily verifiable through basic research.
The outcome also highlights the growing scrutiny of medical-based arguments in immigration cases, suggesting that future appellants may need to provide more robust evidence to support their claims about healthcare availability in their home countries. The ruling sets a precedent for the level of evidence required in similar cases and emphasizes the courts’ commitment to fact-based decision-making in immigration matters.
As the case returns to the First-tier Tribunal, it remains to be seen whether the couple can present more substantial evidence to support their position or if alternative arguments will be developed to challenge the deportation order. The case continues to illustrate the complex interplay between immigration law, personal circumstances, and the necessity for verifiable evidence in legal proceedings.
