Kidnapper convicted of FIFTY crimes since arriving illegally aged 14 wins bid to stay in UK as judge rules he’d be ‘mistreated’ in Kosovo for being Roma
A man convicted of 50 criminal offences, including kidnapping, has successfully appealed against deportation from the UK. Avdi Alija, 39, who arrived illegally aged 14, was part of a gang that kidnapped a man at knifepoint in 2018 and held him captive with threats of violence. An immigration judge ruled he can remain in Britain, citing risks of ill-treatment in his native Kosovo due to his Roma ethnicity and lack of citizenship documentation.
Alija has convictions for burglary, theft, cocaine possession and drug-driving. During the 2018 kidnapping, he allowed his bedsit to be used as a makeshift prison and helped force the victim inside; the victim escaped after four-and-a-half hours by kicking through a window. Sentenced to nine years for false imprisonment and one year for grievous bodily harm, he was released on licence. Home Secretary Priti Patel ordered his deportation in 2022, but Immigration Judge Ian Boyes ruled on 29 September this year that deporting him would breach his human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly concerning ill-treatment and protection of family life.
- Man with 50 convictions including kidnapping wins appeal to stay in UK.
- Immigration judge ruled deportation would breach human rights protections.
- Decision based on Roma identity and lack of citizenship documentation.
New here? Start with this
The UK's immigration system regularly faces cases where criminal convictions and human rights protections clash. When someone is convicted of serious crimes, the authorities may seek to deport them, but courts must also consider whether returning them to their home country would violate their human rights under international law.
Avdi Alija arrived in Britain illegally at age 14 and has since been convicted of 50 criminal offences, including kidnapping. In 2018, he was part of a gang that held a man captive in his flat; the victim escaped after hours by breaking through a window. He received significant prison sentences for these convictions.
Deportation decisions in such cases must weigh serious criminal activity against whether someone would face ill-treatment in their country of origin based on ethnicity, citizenship status or family ties. Immigration courts must balance questions of public protection with international human rights obligations.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of deportation argue that a man with 50 criminal convictions, including kidnapping, represents a serious public safety threat and that states have the right and duty to remove serious offenders, particularly those who entered illegally. They contend that human rights protections, whilst important, must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in protecting its citizens and maintaining the rule of law, especially when the individual lacks legal right to remain.
The case against
Those opposing deportation emphasise that Roma people face documented discrimination and vulnerability in Kosovo, that this man has lived in the UK since age 14 and has family connections here, and that courts have found credible evidence he would face ill-treatment if removed. They argue that fundamental human rights protections—including freedom from ill-treatment—are non-negotiable even for serious offenders, and that deportation to certain harm would breach commitments to the European Convention on Human Rights.