Judge Torpedoes Wild Deportation Dodge

A convicted child rapist tried to dodge deportation by claiming bisexuality—and a judge said no.

Story Snapshot

A tribunal rejected the man’s appeal and ruled deportation is in the public interest.
The judge found he failed to prove he is bisexual and remains a danger to the community.
The offender was convicted in 2018 for raping a 14-year-old and got seven years.
The Home Office argued his sexuality claim was a late, fabricated bid to stay.

What the court actually decided

The immigration tribunal dismissed the appeal and kept the deportation order in place. The decision stated that removal “was and remains in the public interest.” The judge, R Abdar, wrote he was not satisfied the appellant is bisexual. The judge concluded the man failed to prove the claim and still posed a danger to the community. That set the legal anchor: a serious crime, weak credibility, and a clear public safety call by the court.

Brighton court records show the man, named as Karam Majdi, raped a 14-year-old girl. The court sentenced him to seven years in youth custody. That record matters because United Kingdom law gives heavy weight to the public interest when foreign nationals commit grave crimes. The longer the sentence and the younger the victim, the steeper the hill for any appeal against removal. This case checked every box that pushes toward deportation.

Why the bisexuality claim failed

The Home Office said the sexuality claim surfaced years after the crime and lacked proof. Officials told the tribunal there was evidence only of attraction to girls and none toward men. They called the bisexuality claim an embellishment made for the asylum bid. The judge agreed that the appellant did not establish he is bisexual. In asylum law, late claims without solid evidence lose, especially when the person’s record already harms credibility.

United Kingdom guidance tells decision-makers to test stories for coherence, consistency, and fit with country facts. It does not allow guesses or benefit-of-the-doubt leaps when the stakes are this high. The tribunal process exists to weigh claims and filter out weak ones. The government’s public pages show how appeals move and what standards apply. The structure is not flashy, but it is strict and clear about the burden on the appellant to prove their case.

How risk and rights are weighed

Removal after a serious crime triggers a balancing test. Courts compare the risk to the public if the person stays with the risk to the person if sent back. In sexuality-based claims, the first question is identity: is the person actually lesbian, gay, or bisexual. If that fails, the case ends. If it passes, the court asks if open people face harm in the home country. That two-step frame makes evidence of real identity the hinge. Here, the hinge broke.

Some readers ask whether bisexual men face danger in Egypt. Country reports describe social and police pressures. But that question only matters after identity is proven, not before. The tribunal never got past the threshold. On these facts, public safety and the rape of a child drove the outcome. A system that protects the public and applies honest evidence aligns with common sense: punishment for crimes, protection for true refugees, and no free pass for opportunistic claims.

The larger pattern—and the hard line

Tribunals often see last-minute sexuality claims after criminal convictions. Many fail on credibility. Some cases succeed when backed by consistent testimony, corroboration, and digital or witness evidence. This case had none of that in the record put to the press. The result matches other published decisions that reject unproven sexuality claims and keep deportation orders in place for serious offenders. The line is clear: facts first, then protection if warranted.