Out for the Count
Many asylum seekers with HIV in the UK are staying healthy thanks to meds.
But as one fearful widower facing a return to Zambia (and possible death)
explains, being well is often now an excuse for deportation
Illustration: C(Aitch)
Opening
the envelope, I wondered who the junk mail was from this time. In large print
there were the words ‘Notice of Decision’. My heart missed a beat.
‘Refusal to Grant Leave to Remain’. A cold sweat formed on my
brow. On the second sheet, just visible to the eye, was written ‘Liability
to Detention’. I felt faint and my heart started palpitating. Those
with recent negative responses from the Home Office for their Leave to Remain
(LTR) application in the UK due to HIV may identify with my story.
Painfully unprepared
My notice came up in February. I’d read stories about others denied
LTR, but was painfully unprepared for my own ordeal. I phoned a few African
HIV charities advertising emotional support to ‘HIV immigrants’.
I got neither sympathy nor empathy, just stories about the unprecedented frequency
of denials and removals now in force. The organisation I volunteered for were
kind enough to offer a letter of support for my appeal. I’m rarely fazed
by things, but this one incident left me scared and alone.
A futile search for a legal argument
I’d known for a few months that my Human Rights Article 3 application
on account of my HIV status was unlikely to succeed. On my human rights law
course, I’d scoured for an argument for such an application to succeed
following 2005’s test case, ‘N’ v Secretary of State for
the Home Department UK House of Lords and found none. The House of Lords ruled
in this case that it would not be a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention
on human rights to expel ‘N’, a 30-year-old HIV positive Ugandan
woman living in the UK since 1998. They rejected her even though she would
have a poor life expectancy without HIV drugs back in Africa on the grounds
the UK would be seen to be taking responsibility for people with HIV across
the globe.
The threshold set by that ruling means you have to be nearing the end of your
life to qualify to stay. This disqualifies 95-99 per cent of applicants, most
of who are on successful antiretrovirals (ARVs) in the UK. And these decisions
are usually made after people have been on successful three- to four-year
ARV regimen.
No consideration is given to the dire consequences of treatment being withdrawn
or inaccessible for a few weeks. I speak from experience.
A taste of things to come
At one point I allowed myself to be hoodwinked into trying Chinese herbs and
coming off my ARVs. I was assured that in China the concoction had succeeded
in reducing HIV patients’ viral loads to undetectable and giving them
a stable (above 350) CD4 count, eight months after stopping ARVs. Without
coercion,
I went along with the herbal trial. Within a month, my CD4 shot up from 360
to 450. My viral load also went up, from undetectable to 6,000, but tapered
down to about 500 after four months.
I stopped the herbal medication due to issues with a local distributor. Within
three weeks my viral load shot up to 100,000. I had so much virus in my body
I could smell it. This convinced me that when treatment is stopped, viral
rebound into the hundreds of thousands can occur within six to eight weeks.
That means a lot of deportees would probably meet the ‘N’ threshold
to stay in the UK within six months of their removal from the country.
Desperate men do desperate things
I discussed my probable application failure with my social worker who suggested
I tried assisted voluntary repatriation. But first I had to be sure I could
access treatment back in Zambia. Demand for ARVs stands at about 200,000 but
fewer than 60,000 are on meds. I called a leading NGO, the Ministry of Health,
and the World Health Organization; all said the best I could expect was to
buy my own medications. But I haven’t been earning here for almost four
years due to immigration restrictions. Colleagues advised me of high unemployment
back home, too.
I’ve lost two brothers and their spouses to HIV. They have left six
orphans and I’m a widower myself with three children. My parents are
in their seventies. If anything happens to me, who will provide for these
nine children? In the past week alone I’ve heard about the death of
an aunt, a brother-in-law, and three people from the neighbourhood I grew
up in. This made voluntary repatriation a no-go. That’s how the herbal
trial came about. I figured if I was forced home and unable to get treatment,
if the herbs worked it would buy me time to look for alternatives. Desperate
men do desperate things.
Alarmist and ill-conceived
The House of Lords cited economic and social considerations as the main basis
for refusing ‘N’ leave to remain, yet the argument is a moral
one. Some human rights scholars have pointed out that human rights law is
the protection of ‘individuals against the abuses of governments...’
Going by this, the House of Lords ruling could be viewed as a violation and
contradiction of the very essence of human rights law. Sadly, my doctor refused
to give me a support letter for my appeal.
Until 2004, the UK provided HIV treatment to less than 30,000 infected individuals
from abroad. There were already over 30 million HIV infections worldwide by
this period and yet there was no massive influx described by the courts. True,
asylum applications have risen from trouble-torn countries like Zimbabwe,
but for many of these migrants, HIV is not the main reason they are here.
Judges redefining HIV prognosis
What wrenched my heart in the case of ‘N’ was the assertion that
HIV is a terminal illness and therefore it didn’t matter we were being
sent home to face death. After all, we would die from HIV even if we stayed
in the UK. Our physicians here tell us to expect almost normal life expectancies
if we look after ourselves and adhere to meds. Now our Law Lords tell us otherwise.
The bottom line is the ‘N’ ruling was presumptuous, discriminatory
and a violation of Protocol 12 of the Human Rights Law.
The court’s failure to protect this vulnerable group of people with
HIV, to whom they have a moral obligation, makes a mockery of the Convention
on Human Rights. The UK has made commendable contributions to fighting Aids
in the developing world and a commitment to make ARVs available to all by
2010. Morality demands that HIV Article 3 deportations are halted until this
target has been reached. Withdrawing HIV treatment and subsequent deportation
is degrading and inhuman punishment that no individual should be subjected
to.
Fattened for the slaughter house
If applications at the Home Office were processed before beginning treatment
and forced us to return to our countries, it would be better, perhaps to even
face death. To be kept on treatment for three to four years, and then have
it quickly withdrawn makes you feel you were being fattened for the slaughterhouse.
What false hope.
Should the UK provide treatment to all HIV immigrants? Of course not. Perhaps
as some Human Rights lawyers have been advocating, those of us who were on
treatment before the ‘N’ trial (May 2005) should be granted leave
to remain, at least until the millennium goals are attained. A lot of us are
well educated enough to be able to make meaningful contributions to the economy.
Leaky roofs
My late grandfather used to say: “If a stranger knocks on your door
and asks for shelter from rain and you refuse, your roof will leak.”
I’ve only been in this country since 2002. In that time, three Home
Secretaries have presided over home affairs. Of two of these it may be said
that their roofs have not only leaked, but collapsed.
Right now the Home Office is struggling to track down criminals who they’ve
released from jail but failed to deport. I believe a deeper, higher law may
be at work, one that ensures that while the UK continues to forcibly deport
all those in genuine need, who are law abiding and do no harm, they will be
replaced by undesirables.
I will probably have gone by the time this article is printed, but it’s
not too late to save those I leave behind. Recently, through no fault of the
Home Secretary, a group of asylum seekers won their human rights application
for leave to remain after unconventionally ‘leasing’ an aircraft.
I’m sorry, minister, but your roof is beginning to leak...
.
