LONDON UK High Court has stayed the eviction of a 64-year-old Pakistani mother who was asked to leave UK 17 years after her stay in the country. Ghulam Sughra, a widow and a resident of Rochdale came to UK on May 9, 1993 to see her son Akhtar Mahmood a British citizen. She applied on Sept 5, 1993, pleading for stay with her son as a dependant mother. Under immigration rules, since then she has been running around offices of lawyers and home office awaiting decision. Despite the fact that her all three children who are British citizens reside in UK, her British father Fazal Karim who died in 1970 and her husband Abdul Ghafoor died in 1980 in Pakistan. She has no body in Pakistan who could look after her. UK Border Agency asked her to leave UK on September 23, 2009, and no right of appeal to an immigration judge was allowed to her. Her lawyer served a notice on British Home Secretary on 29 September 09 that if the decision is not reviewed, they will file a judicial review before a high court judge. UK Border Agency maintained their decision on 5 October 2009 and asked the British family members to accompany their mother if needed, and saw no unreasonableness in its decision. UKBA wrote, It is accepted that during the time your client has been in the UK, she will have established a private life, however, it is considered that the private life had been established in the knowledge that she had no legal basis to remain in the United Kingdom. In order to protect the wider interests and rights of the public, it is vital to maintain effective immigration control. In pursuit of that aim the Secretary of State believes that any interference with her family and/or private life, would be a legitimate, necessary and proportionate response and in accordance with the law. It went one step further and wrote, while your client and her family might prefer to live in the United Kingdom, no reason has been advanced as to why they cannot return, as a family unit, to her country of origin and rebuild their ties there just as they have done in the United Kingdom. On November 9, a writ petition was filed in high court writ and sought a stay on her removal and judicial review of the home secretarys decision, pleading that it merits judicial oversight as it infringes a widow mothers Article 8 rights to have a family life and her deportation will breach those rights. London High Court Judge HHJ Raynor QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court at Manchester granted permission to challenge the UK Border Agency decision dated 5 October and the ruling observed: It seems to me to be arguable that the determination of the claimants Article 8 claim and her application for discretionary leave were flawed by a failure properly to take account of the very considerable delays in reaching immigration decisions in her case, and by the suggestion (in the letter of 5 October 2009) that her family members lawfully reside and are settled in the UK might choose to return as a family with her to Pakistan, and by the failure to consider the IR 395 C considerations. The Lawyer of Ghulam Sughra has invited the UK Border Agency to withdraw their decision, and grant her permanent residency. The matter is likely to go to a full court hearing on 12 July 2010 before Administrative Court at Manchester and may have repercussions on long residence application. New Tory Lib Dems decisions have raised legitimate expectations of immigrants by calling for amnesty for all those who are here for 5 years. Since they are in coalition govt, its a test for them and their voters as to how they address problems of victims like Ghulam Sughra who has been asked to leave, taking her British children with her.