Man claims wife can’t get IVF in Nigeria, begs UK court to stop deportation

THE CASE

In October 2019, a UK court convicted Ogunbawo of “conspiring/assisting
unlawful immigration and seeking to obtain leave to enter/remain in the UK by
deception”.

He was sentenced to three years in prison.

He was accused of plotting with his then pregnant wife,
Maria Adesanya, to pay Adekunle Adeparusi, a British citizen, to register
himself as the father of their child.

Ogunbawo was said to have believed that the move would
enable his wife, and the child could stay in the UK.

Following the conviction, in November 2019, Ogunbawo was
issued with a deportation notice to Nigeria.

However, he approached a first-tier tribunal on immigration
to stop the deportation on human rights grounds.

During the tribunal proceedings, Ogunbawo’s wife told the
tribunal that the chances of her conceiving would be ‘non-existent’ in Nigeria
if her husband is deported to his home country.

Maria also told the court that IVF treatment centres are not
available in Nigeria.

In January 2023, the first-tier tribunal ruled that it will
be “unduly harsh” to deport Ogunbawo.

The tribunal dismissed the deportation notice issued against
him.

The first-tier tribunal judge identified as Malone in court
documents based his judgment on the claim that Ogunbawo’s wife cannot get IVF
treatment in Nigeria.

But the claim that an IVF procedure cannot be done in
Nigeria is untrue.

Displeased with the decision of the first-tier tribunal, the
UK secretary of state for the home department approached the upper tribunal.

THE LATEST JUDGMENT

On November 4, 2024, the upper tribunal held that the judge
of the lower tribunal should not have relied on the personal evidence given by
Maria that there were no IVF treatment centres in Nigeria.

The upper tribunal judges agreed with the assertion of the
UK secretary of state for the home department that a simple Google search will
reveal the existence of IVF centres in Nigeria.

The upper tribunal dismissed the judgment of the first-tier
tribunal and ordered that the case should be returned to the lower court.

“We conclude that the judge erred in exclusively relying
upon Ms. A’s (referring to Maria) personal evidence when finding as a fact that
IVF treatment is unavailable in Nigeria,” the upper tribunal ruled.

“In circumstances where neither party filed objective
evidence as to the availability of IVF treatment in Nigeria, the judge failed
to address in his reasoning as to how Ms. A had formed her personal view.

“Whilst it may have been her subjective view that the
treatment is unavailable, the judge was required to assess and determine the
objective fact of whether IVF treatment is available in Nigeria or not.

“For example, we cannot discern from the judge’s decision
whether he concluded that IVF treatment is unavailable based upon a bald
assertion from Ms. A without her having performed any research into what IVF
treatment is available in Nigeria, or equally whether his finding is based upon
oral evidence detailing efforts she made in contacting hospitals and clinics in
Nigeria about offering fertility treatment.

“We observe the Secretary of State’s unchallenged assertion
before us that even the most basic Google search reveals the existence of IVF
treatment in Nigeria.

“The Secretary of State’s appeal is allowed to the extent
that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety.

“The appeal is to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to
be heard by any judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Malone.”