An Albanian drug dealer who was considered a ‘serious threat to the public’ has won an asylum case to stay in Britain after a judge ruled he has ‘learnt his lesson’.
Arlind Nabolli, 29, was caught dealing cocaine and cannabis and jailed for more than two years.
He was found in possession of 10 grams of cocaine and 30 grams of cannabis, together with cash and details of two money transfers to two people in Albania.
The judge at the time believed that this was not an isolated incident because his car was seen going into Maidstone on multiple occasions.
His crimes were not ‘isolated incidents’ and he was ‘in the habit’ of dealing drugs in Maidstone, Kent.
But now an immigration judge has ruled that Nabolli can remain in the UK because he has shown remorse.
Nabolli told the asylum court that he has ‘learnt his lesson’ and he is now a ‘law-abiding’ delivery driver.
The Albanian national entered the UK in 2018 with his wife, but in January 2022, the Home Office issued a deportation notice to him because he had committed a ‘serious offence’.
Just two years after being granted leave to remain, Nabolli was found guilty of drug offences with intent to supply and road traffic offences and was jailed for 33 months.
When Nabolli’s appeal on human rights grounds was rejected, he then claimed the offending was a ‘one-off’.
He also said while in prison he underwent rehabilitation that he would not be able to continue with if he were deported to Albania.
The asylum seeker claimed that he was not dealing drugs when he was caught, but was a user and had been taking the substances to someone as a favour, for no financial gain.
The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard that he did not appeal the original sentence from the judge because he was advised it could make his sentence longer.
He also said his wife and children had no intention of leaving the UK if he was deported, and he ‘could not bear to be separated’ from them.
An Upper Tribunal judgement said: ‘[Nabolli] claims that his conduct does not constitute a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat affecting the fundamental interests of society.
‘He claims that his deportation from the UK would be disproportionate as a matter of EU law given the length of residence, strength of connections he has with the UK and the fact that his offending behaviour was a one-off offence.
‘He states that he has learnt his lesson and that he recognises the impact his offending behaviour has on his victims and has not re-offended since his release from prison in early April 2022.’
At the hearing, Upper Tribunal Judge Karim-ullah Khan ruled in his favour.
Judge Khan said: ‘He lives with his wife and two young children and has obtained employment working part-time while sharing the childcare arrangements with his wife, who also works part-time.
‘Significantly, there has been no continuation nor escalation in his offending. His lifestyle appears to be stable and firmly focused on his family life.
‘Nabolli accepted that his prior offending was serious and that it was wrong which ever way it was viewed, clearly showing insight and maturity. He also denied that he was challenging the conviction.’
Arifa Ahmed, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer, argued that Nabolli had not re-offended because the threat of deportation was ‘hanging over him’ and that by characterising the offence as a ‘one-off’ he was failing to take responsibility for his actions.
But Judge Khan didn’t agree and said: ‘It is not so black and white.
‘Factually, [his] offending was a ‘one-off.’ There has been no escalation or continuation of his offending.
‘Even though it is true that he has had the threat of deportation hanging over him, that does not in my view fully explain why he has not re-offended.
‘I consider for the foregoing reasons, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that [Nabolli’s] conduct shows a propensity to re-offend, and therefore his conduct at this time does not constitute a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
‘Accordingly, [his] appeal is allowed.’
