Terrorist Plotter Allowed to Stay in UK Despite Asylum Rejection
A convicted terrorist involved in a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange was permitted to remain in Britain even after being denied asylum, according to a newly published immigration judgment. Shah Rahman, a Bangladeshi national and one of four al-Qaeda-inspired extremists found guilty in 2012, had his refugee claim refused but was later granted the right to stay in the United Kingdom based on human rights considerations.
Details of the Immigration Decision
The ruling, which concerns Rahman's wife Parveen Purbhoo, reveals that he applied for asylum in 2017, the same year he was initially released on licence from prison. His application was rejected under Article 51 of the Refugee Convention, which explicitly prohibits individuals involved in terrorism or serious criminal activities from receiving refugee status.
However, despite this refusal, Rahman was allowed to remain in the country. The judgment states: 'He was granted restricted leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis that he could not be removed to Bangladesh without breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.'
Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention provides an absolute right to protection from torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Parole Board has indicated that Rahman, who plotted to bomb the London Stock Exchange, could potentially be released from prison again in the future.
Marriage and Subsequent Events
Rahman, who had been imprisoned for threatening to blow up the stock exchange, was released on licence in June 2019. That same month, he married Purbhoo, a Mauritian citizen, in an Islamic ceremony at East London Mosque while she was visiting the UK. Purbhoo's identity and her relationship with Rahman can now be reported after legal restrictions were lifted.
She later applied for entry clearance to Britain. Her first application was refused, but a second attempt succeeded. In submissions to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), she stated that she returned to the UK in February 2020 before leaving again a month later due to the pandemic.
In August 2021, she attempted to re-enter the UK to formalise the marriage in a civil ceremony. As a Mauritian national, she did not require a visa and travelled using an electronic travel authorisation.
Discovery of ISIS Material and Consequences
Upon arrival at Heathrow Airport, immigration officers searched her phone and discovered ISIS-related material, including videos of soldiers and jihadist propaganda. A police report presented to the court found: 'She appeared very blasé about having them on her mobile. She could not remember where or how they got there. She admitted that she wanted to learn more about it and what it was and about the atrocities.'
Despite this discovery, she was allowed into the country and went on to live with Rahman. He was arrested in February 2022 and recalled to prison after breaching the terms of his licence. He was convicted of failing to notify authorities about a mobile phone, email address, and bank account.
The judgment said: 'Mr Rahman accepted before the parole board that he would use the illicit mobile phone to contact the applicant. In his witness statement in these proceedings, he accepts that he used the phone to have private video calls with her.'
A forensic psychology report also found that Purbhoo had been 'complicit in the breaches for which Mr Rahman was convicted.'
Permanent Exclusion and Upholding of Decision
Her case was reviewed in 2023, and she was permanently excluded from the UK by then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman. In a ruling published on Monday, judges upheld that decision and rejected her appeal.
Mrs Justice Farbey, Mark Ockelton, and Roger Golland found: 'The applicant was complicit in Mr Rahman's unlawful breach of notification requirements; and she has not provided either the police or SIAC with an explanation of how Islamist material came to be on her phone. Her willingness to place her own interests over and above legal or administrative processes is troubling and risky.'
The commission concluded that she had been 'reasonably assessed as a national security risk' and that her exclusion from the UK was proportionate. This case highlights the complex interplay between immigration controls, human rights protections, and national security concerns in contemporary Britain.
