A blind Nigerian pensioner who has lived in the United Kingdom for 26 years has been told by the Home Office that she could safely return to India, a country she has never visited and has no connection with. The decision has raised questions about the handling of her immigration application and the government’s new settlement rules.
Comfort, whose real name has been withheld, is 67 and arrived in the UK in 2000. Shortly after her arrival, she suddenly lost her sight following an episode of acute glaucoma.
After spending two decades in Britain, she was granted permission to remain under the long-residence immigration route in 2022. However, the new settlement rules announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood could leave her waiting almost another 20 years before she becomes eligible for indefinite leave to remain.
Under the previous arrangement, people granted permission through the long-residence route were required to renew their visas every 30 months for 10 years before applying for indefinite leave to remain.
The revised rules are expected to extend the waiting period significantly for some migrants, leaving Comfort facing repeated visa renewals until she is in her 80s.
Home Office rejects request for exceptional consideration
Concerned about her age, blindness and prolonged residence in Britain, lawyers representing Comfort at Refugee and Migrant Justice applied for her to receive indefinite leave to remain immediately.
Their application relied on provisions allowing the Home Office to fast-track settlement requests in exceptional circumstances. They argued that her personal circumstances justified an exemption from the lengthy waiting period.
However, the Home Office rejected the request. In the initial part of its refusal letter, the department suggested that Comfort could return to Nigeria because services for blind people were available there.
But the letter’s concluding section referred to India instead, stating: “Your circumstances are not so severe or lacking in potential treatment in India that it would warrant indefinite leave to remain in this case.”
The reference to India was particularly troubling because Comfort is Nigerian and has never visited the country.
The Home Office’s response exposed an apparent error in the handling of her case, with the department seemingly confusing two different countries when assessing her circumstances.
Home Office sources subsequently confirmed that corrective action was being taken to issue her with an updated letter.
Woman fears another 20 years of visa renewals
Comfort said she was deeply disappointed by the prospect of waiting nearly two more decades for permanent settlement, despite having spent most of her adult life in Britain.
“In 2022, I got my permission to stay here based on long residence in the UK,” she said.
“I’m very disheartened that I may now need to wait nearly 20 years to get indefinite leave to remain.”
She explained that Britain had become her home, where she had established friendships, maintained her church connections and participated in voluntary activities.
“I have been living in this country for 26 years. I have found my home here and settled well. I have my friends, my church and do voluntary work,” she said.
Comfort also appealed to the Home Office to consider her circumstances and grant her permanent residence rather than subjecting her to another lengthy period of uncertainty.
“I’m a good citizen, not a law-breaker and am begging the Home Office to have mercy on me and grant me indefinite leave to remain now, rather than making me wait 20 more years,” she said.
She questioned why the department had suggested that she could return to India, given that she had no personal connection with the country.
“I don’t know why the Home Office said I could go back to India. It’s a country I have never visited and have no connection with,” she added.
Migrant rights campaigners condemn settlement policy
Nick Beales, head of campaigning at Migrant and Refugee Justice, which is supporting Comfort, criticised the Home Office’s decision and argued that there was no public interest in forcing her to continue renewing her visa.
“This woman is blind, in her late 60s and has lived in the UK for a quarter of a century. She meets the rules to remain here and there is no public interest in making her continue to renew her visa,” he said.
Beales accused the government of prioritising a tough approach to immigration over the welfare of vulnerable people who had established their lives in Britain.
“Rather than viewing these vulnerable people as human beings, the government is fixated on appearing tough,” he said.
He also warned that Mahmood’s proposed changes to settlement routes could worsen the difficulties faced by migrants, particularly when Home Office decision-makers were already making serious errors in individual cases.
“Shabana Mahmood’s plans to double settlement routes will clearly make these problems even worse, especially as her decision-makers cannot even differentiate between India and Nigeria,” Beales added.
Elderly migrants face potentially impossible waiting periods
Concerns about the new settlement requirements extend beyond Comfort’s case.
Freedom of information data obtained by Refugee and Migrant Justice showed that people of pensionable age have applied through settlement routes but could face waiting periods so long that they may die before becoming eligible.
One person identified in the Home Office data disclosure is a 103-year-old woman from Pakistan who, under the new requirements, would not qualify for settlement until she was 123.
The figures have intensified criticism of a policy that could leave elderly migrants facing immigration uncertainty for much of the remainder of their lives.
Beales questioned the purpose of requiring people in their 80s and older to wait another 20 years before securing permanent residence.
“Government data shows that people over 80 are applying to enter these settlement routes. While it’s unlikely many of these people would survive a 10-year period, Mahmood has not explained what she hopes to achieve by making these octogenarians and older wait two decades before having settlement,” he said.
He urged the government to abandon what he described as a cruel and counterproductive earned-settlement model.
“The government should admit that their earned settlement model is cruel and counter-productive and scrap these plans once and for all,” he said.
Home Office promises corrective action
The Home Office declined to comment specifically on Comfort’s individual case but maintained that applications for permission to remain in Britain were assessed according to immigration rules and the evidence submitted.
A spokesperson said: “We do not routinely comment on individual cases. All applications for permission to stay in the UK are carefully considered on their individual merits, in line with the immigration rules and based on the information and evidence provided by the applicant.”
Meanwhile, sources within the department said steps were being taken to issue Comfort with a corrected letter.
The case has brought renewed attention to the consequences of the government’s proposed settlement changes, particularly for elderly and vulnerable migrants who have spent decades building their lives in Britain.
For Comfort, the immediate concern is not simply the prospect of another 20 years of visa renewals, but the uncertainty of her future after 26 years in a country she considers home.
About The Author
