Judge Shuts Down Migrants Last-Minute ‘Bisexual’ Claim

A British tribunal ruled that an Egyptian offender who raped a 14-year-old girl is not bisexual and must leave the United Kingdom.

Story Snapshot

Brighton Crown Court sentenced Karam Majdi to seven years for raping a 14-year-old girl in 2018.
Majdi later claimed he is bisexual and would face persecution if sent to Egypt.
The Home Office argued the sexuality claim was a fabrication made for asylum.
A judge rejected his appeal and said removal remains in the public interest.

The Case: Crime, Claim, and Consequence

Brighton Crown Court convicted Karam Majdi of raping a 14-year-old girl and sentenced him to seven years in custody in 2018. Reports identified him as an asylum seeker at the time of the offense. The sentence, the age of the victim, and the nature of the crime pushed the case into the United Kingdom’s strict rules for foreign offenders. Those rules give heavy weight to public safety when the government considers deportation after release.

Years later, in removal proceedings, Majdi told a tribunal he is bisexual. He said he could not be returned to Egypt because he would face harm due to his sexuality. That claim, if credible, can trigger protection under refugee and human rights law. The problem came down to proof. The government said his claim began in 2021 and did not match earlier interviews. The tribunal then had to test his story against evidence and risk.

The Government’s Position and the Evidence Test

The Home Office said Majdi’s bisexuality claim was an embellishment and a fabrication made for asylum. Officials told the tribunal there was evidence of attraction to girls and none to men. They argued he had not produced convincing proof of same-sex relationships. In asylum law, claimants must present a coherent, consistent account that fits with available country information. The public record here shows a stark credibility fight rather than a complex expert case.

Tribunals often face these disputes. Many sexual orientation claims rise or fall on credibility, not just country risk. A United Kingdom guidance note stresses that decision-makers weigh statements, documents, and behavior against consistency and plausibility. Delays in raising a claim can also cut against credibility. None of that judges identity in a moral sense. It judges whether the story meets the legal bar to stop removal.

The Tribunal’s Ruling: Public Interest Prevails

Judge R Abdar found Majdi failed to prove he is bisexual. The judge stated he was not satisfied with the claim and concluded that Majdi remained a danger to the community. On that basis, the tribunal rejected the appeal. The ruling said his removal was and remains in the public interest. That language tracks the legal test that requires very strong reasons to block deportation when serious violent or sexual offenses are involved.

Country conditions in Egypt can be harsh for sexual minorities. Reports note a pattern of arrests and social targeting even though same-sex conduct is not explicitly illegal on paper. Those risks can stop removal if the person proves they are in the protected group or will be seen as such. The court did not need to decide the full Egypt risk because it did not accept that Majdi met the identity threshold in the first place.

What This Says About The System

This outcome shows how the system draws a hard line when a foreign national commits a grave crime. The state centers victims and public safety. That aligns with common sense: a man convicted of raping a child should not stay by leaning on a late, thin claim. Still, the process must be fair. The bar is high, but not impossible, for those who can prove real risk. The rule of law depends on both protection for the vulnerable and removal of clear threats.

Two truths can stand together. First, the United Kingdom owes safety to its people, especially children. Second, the United Kingdom must not send someone to face torture or degrading harm. That is why evidence rules matter. In this case, the judge found the evidence wanting and the risk to the public too great. The message is blunt: if you claim protection, bring proof; if you prey on children, expect to go.