Skip to main content

Immigration (Tony Lola)

Volume 493: debated on Monday 1 June 2009

The Petition of persons concerned at the Government’s decision to refuse Tony Lola’s application for asylum,

Declares that over Christmas 2005, Tony Lola, then aged 6, was being held in custody by police in the Democratic Republic of Congo; notes that his parents had objected to the politics of the governing party; further notes that soon after, Tony was released but because he was felt to be at risk, he was sent to join his mother, Mireille, who had fled the DRC in 2002; further declares that, since his arrival, Tony has amazed and delighted those in the community he has joined at Didsbury CE Primary School and in the congregation at Emmanuel Church, Didsbury; further notes that he is fully integrated and participates with evident enthusiasm in his studies and activities at both the school and in the church; believes that he shows real potential to develop his already impressive talents to the benefit of the whole community; further notes that in 2007, his application for asylum was turned down by the Home Office as HM Government believes the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo does not pose a threat to Tony or Mireille; and further declares that he and Mireille are now at risk of removal back to DR Congo

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review its decision and the Home Office to use their powers of discretion and allow Tony and Mireille to stay.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr. John Leech, Official Report, 30 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 760.]

[P000340]

Observations from the Secretary of State for the Home Department:

Following careful consideration the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) decided to grant Tony Lola and his mother Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. This is a grant of leave under paragraph 395c of the Immigration Rules.

The UK operates a fair and humane immigration system that takes into account individual circumstances such as length of time in the UK, protects those who need it, which removes those who do not.

The support shown from within the local community towards this family has been admirable, we have repeatedly said that we will always consider fresh evidence and that we would never remove someone with outstanding applications or appeals. All of our decisions are made in line with the published criteria and within the boundaries of immigration rules and the public should have confidence in us.

We hope that the support this family has received from the community will continue as they make their lives in this country.