British man says he fears for family trapped in Iran by Home Office appeal

A British man has told of his fears for his family who are trapped in Iran after winning the right to reunite in the UK, because the Home Office have appealed against the decision.
After news broke in the early hours of Sunday morning that the US had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, fears for the safety of the man's parents and sister, currently stranded in Tehran, are mounting.
The man, who the Guardian is not naming to protect his family, said: 'It breaks my heart knowing the difficulties that my parents and sister are having. The daily worry and coordination to support them all add to a sense of helplessness.
'Since escaping from Afghanistan after the arrival of the Taliban in 2021 my parents have lost their home and community, all their belongings and their careers.'
The man, who has dual Afghan and British citizenship, said he was frantic with worry after his parents said bombs have been exploding around them in the neighbourhood where they are sheltering.
The family tried to come to the UK legally, and were initially refused, but an immigration tribunal ruled that the parents and daughter had a right to family life in the UK with their British son and brother.
However the Home Office has appealed against the judge's ruling to a higher court in an attempt to keep the family out of the UK. It is not known when the case will finally be determined and the family fear they are running out of time.
The family cannot be named because the lives of the parents and daughter, currently in Tehran, are in extreme danger. The parents, both in their 60s, opposed the Taliban regime both times it has been in control of Afghanistan.
The father was a doctor who worked with international NGOs and the mother was a teacher who continued to teach Afghan girls in secret during the Taliban's first rule, which banned girls' education. She was also a women's rights activist.
The daughter was close to completing a university degree when the Taliban took over for the second time and was forced to abandon her studies. She is trying to help her parents stay alive in Tehran. Both have serious physical health problems and her mother uses a wheelchair. Both parents suffer from PTSD.
The family had initially escaped from Afghanistan to Russia where they were granted temporary protection, but when the daughter was given an ultimatum to join Russian forces fighting against Ukraine or face deportation to Afghanistan the family fled again, this time to Iran, one of the few countries granting entry visas to Afghans.
Shortly after they arrived, hostilities between Iran and Israel increased.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
According to government data in 2024, Afghans were the largest nationality group crossing the Channel, making up 17% of the 35,359, more than 6,000 people. The next biggest nationality groups were Syrians, Iranians, Vietnamese and Eritreans.
The UK government granted entry to more than 30,000 Afghans in two resettlement schemes set up after the Taliban takeover in August 2021 but the schemes have been criticised for their narrow scope and slow pace of decision-making.
The family's solicitor Diana Baxter at Wesley Gryk said: 'This is a stark example of what happens when refugees try to seek 'safe and legal routes' to come to the UK. This family have ended up living in dire conditions initially in Russia and now in Iran. The Home Office has the power to grant the family entry to the UK but it is choosing not to do so.'
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'It is our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases.'
Home Office sources said that between 2010 and December 2024, the UK resettled more than 35,000 individuals under UNHCR resettlement schemes, the sixth largest number in the world after the US, Canada, Australia, Germany and Sweden.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News

35 minutes ago

• Sky News

Palestine Action to be proscribed - but what does that mean?

Palestine Action faces being proscribed as a terror group after activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged two military aircraft. It was the latest law broken by the activist group. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said they are also alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage and assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer. He said he was "shocked and frustrated" to learn that a protest in support of the group was being planned on Monday, but that the force had "no power in law" to prevent it. The group's proscription, however, would change that. But what is proscription, what effect does it have, and how many proscribed organisations are there? What is proscription? Proscription is the banning of an organisation based on an assessment that it commits or participates in, prepares for, promotes or encourages, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism, the Home Office says. 1:49 The home secretary can choose to proscribe an organisation if it is found to do any of the following: • Commits or participates in acts of terrorism • Prepares for terrorism • Promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or, • Is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Any move to proscribe the group must be debated and approved by MPs and peers. When deciding to proscribe an organisation, the government takes into account: • The nature and scale of an organisation's activities • The specific threat that it poses to the UK • The specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas • The extent of the organisation's presence in the UK • The need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. What does proscribing a group do? It makes it illegal to show support for the proscribed group, with any offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years in prison. 2:45 Specifically, it is a criminal offence to: • Belong to a proscribed organisation • Invite support for a proscribed organisation • Recklessly express support for a proscribed organisation • Arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation • Wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation • Publish an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances. The last two offences are less severe and punishable by up to six months in prison and/or a fine not exceeding £5,000. How many proscribed organisations are there? There are 81 organisations proscribed by the UK government under the Terrorism Act 2000, not including 14 organisations in Northern Ireland such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that were proscribed under previous legislation. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is on the proscribed list and the most recent addition is The Terrorgram collective - an online transnational network of extreme right-wing terrorists which the government says wants to bring about the collapse of Western democracy and a "race war". You can see the full list by clicking here. Can a proscribed group be taken off the list? The group or someone deemed to be "affected" by a proscription can submit a written application to the home secretary requesting that they consider taking them off the list. If the application is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which allows an appeal if it considers that the home secretary's decision to refuse de-proscription was "flawed".

Reuters

38 minutes ago

• Reuters

Bank of England's Bailey defends bond programme after Reform UK criticism

LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey defended the central bank's programme of government bond purchases and sales which has come under fire from some politicians for its cost. In a letter to Richard Tice, deputy leader of the Reform UK party which is led by former Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, Bailey said claims that the programme was more expensive than those run by other central banks did not tell the full story. Britain's government issued more long-term debt than other countries at a time when the BoE's bond-buying - or quantitative easing - was keeping borrowing costs low, giving the country a longer-lasting benefit, Bailey said. "Put simply, the cash flow cost of QE/QT is not therefore what it seems, and the outcome in these terms will be better," he said in the letter published on Monday. Reform - which is leading Britain's more established political parties in opinion polls - has said the government could save as much as 40 billion pounds ($53.6 billion) a year by stopping payment of interest to banks on reserves held at the BoE. Most of those reserves were created as a byproduct of the central bank's bond purchases which began in 2009 and reached a peak of almost 900 billion pounds in holdings in 2021. Since then, the BoE has sold much of its bond portfolio - known as quantitative tightening - and the programme is due to incur losses for the public finances because of a rise in interest rates and a subsequent fall in the value of the bonds. In his letter, Bailey said the bond purchases shielded Britain's economy from a string of economic shocks over the past 16 years. "It is easy to forget the severe problems we faced with these shocks," he said. "Although the counterfactual is unknowable with any precision, most estimates indicate that QE provided very significant support to the UK economy, protecting both jobs and tax revenues." Bailey said that ceasing paying interest on reserves was tantamount to increasing taxes on banks and would lead to lower interest payments for savers or higher interest rates for borrowers. He also disputed Reform's view that British banks were making excess profits. "Interest paid on reserves is not free money for the banks, not least as most of it is paid on to customers in the form of interest on their deposits," Bailey said.

Daily Mail​

39 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Never here Keir! Starmer won't come to the Commons to field questions on Iran crisis and will miss PMQs AGAIN this week... after dodging grilling on grooming gangs

Keir Starmer will not field questions from MPs on the Iran crisis today amid criticism that he is dodging scrutiny. The PM is sending Foreign Secretary David Lammy to deliver a Commons statement on the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East this afternoon. Mr Lammy will come under huge pressure to justify the UK's position of refusing to say whether or not it backs US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Sir Keir, who is meeting Volodymyr Zelensky this afternoon, is expected to take Cabinet but not be in the House tomorrow. He will miss PMQs for the second week running on Wednesday as he is due at the Nato summit in The Hague. By Thursday, when he is due to make an appearance, the premier will not have spoken in the chamber for more than two weeks. Sir Keir has still not updated the elected chamber on the G7 summit in Canada last week - something that by convention happens as soon as possible. Sir Keir is under huge pressure to justify the UK's position of refusing to say whether or not it backs Donald Trump's strikes on Iran nuclear sites He was previously criticised for delaying his return from that gathering to dodge a grilling on grooming gangs. The summit wrapped up on Tuesday night, but Angela Rayner stood in at the weekly PMQs session the following lunchtime. The bombshell report by Baroness Casey condemning institutions for ignoring ethnic factors in sexual abuse of children dominated clashes in the House. Sir Keir had chosen to announced his extraordinary U-turn to back a statutory national inquiry into the scandal as he left the country for Canada the weekend before. The PM had spent months resisting demands from Opposition politicians and campaigners to trigger a new probe. But he shifted his position after reading the damning conclusions of Lady Casey's rapid review. Sir Keir was in Alberta when Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made an apology to victims on behalf of the state, and published the Whitehall troubleshooter's report. Although he faced questions from the media at the G7 - which has been dominated by the Israel-Iran crisis - Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Sir Keir 'should have been in the chamber this week talking about this issue'. Ms Rayner will again fill in for Sir Keir in the chamber this Wednesday. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said: 'The Prime Minister has not even spoken once in the Commons since this crisis began.