The Home Office has warned anyone who helps a runaway asylum seeker accused of lying about his age to pose as a child that they could be jailed for 14 years.
Members of a Facebook group supporting Rabar Hamad's bid to remain in the UK are believed to be helping him evade deportation.
Hamad claimed to be 14 when he arrived in Britain in 2008, hiding in the wheel arch of a lorry. He told immigration officials that he was orphaned when his family were killed in Iraq.
But after tests earlier this year, as Hamad studied for GCSEs at Breeze Hill School in Oldham, officials ruled that he was 20 years old.
This means he is not entitled to free care and education offered under asylum laws to under-18.
Friends and his school are backing a campaign after his leave to remain in the country failed.
But Hamad disappeared days before a date was set for his deportation.
Police and the UK Border Agency have launched a joint investigation to trace him and believe he is being helped by supporters.
Members of a 2,500-strong Facebook group titled 'Don't Deport 16-year-old Rabar Hamad' claim he is being looked after by friends.
Authorities believe the site is also being used to raise money to support his bid to stay in the country after his leave to remain failed.
A UK Border Agency spokesman confirmed he has absconded and said: “Immigration absconders are liable to be arrested on sight and anyone facilitating their continued presence runs the risk of prosecution, up to 14 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine."
Matthew Coats, head of the agency's immigration group, added: “We need to be sure we are correctly supporting the individual according to their needs but also protecting children from adults who pose as minors.
“We rely on the age assessments carried out by local authority social workers to ensure our immigration laws are not evaded by those who try to cheat the system. Individuals who no longer have a right to be in the UK are instructed to leave. If they fail to depart by the allocated flight then we will seek to remove them.”
Hamad was placed under the care of Wigan social services after his arrival then allowed to attend the Oldham school.
Teachers there claim he is a model student and he has had football trials at Bury and Fulham.
But Wigan council carried out a series of assessments and ruled he was in fact 20. They looked at his appearance and communication skills and overturned the findings of an initial assessment that supported his story.
Teachers and friends however are adamant that he is aged under 18.
Hamad went on the run after failing to report in as ordered to once a week to Oldham police station.
Police last night confirmed they were looking for him and said they believed he was safe.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
thoughtful, East of Manchester (15/08/2010 at 21:54)
The more I've heard about his assylum claim the more I've thought it was ill founded.
If the authorities have decided with the help of experts & a judge that he is not the age he claims to be, and that he does not have a legitamate claim for assylum then I would rather believe them ahead of a group of loonie leftie activists, who have no expertise at all.
Luther, Manchester (15/08/2010 at 23:18)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 09:56)
jimquk, longsight manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:15)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 16:31)
Ian Paice, Tameside (16/08/2010 at 00:11)
If he has gone to ground he obviously knows that he has no right whatsover to remain in this country and become yet another drain on the taxpayers resources !!
Bemused of Tameside., Dukinfield (16/08/2010 at 00:25)
If a newspaper and a regular contributor wish to be taken seriously then surely a reasonable level of literacy would help.
In my opinion ... he sneaked into the country hidden in a wheel arch, if he had a valid reason to be here then why do that???
As for experts and judges .... yeah, ok, they always do right.
ebble, manchester (16/08/2010 at 00:40)
Ivor Rash, Oldham (16/08/2010 at 15:29)
Could you narrow it down a bit further, there's so much choice!
Enthusiasm Curbed (16/08/2010 at 08:35)
I wonder if that initial assessment was the report of an independent doctor?
From the BBC story:
"But an independent tribunal doctor found he was aged between 13 and 16."
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10980644
It's also in the Indie: "Wigan Council undertook two age assessments with Hamad, both of which said he was over 18, but an independent tribunal doctor found he was aged between 13 and 16." (Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iraqi-in-immigration-dispute-disappears-2053610.html )
This is a question of age/physical development so I would tend to go with a doctor's assessment rather than a local authority social worker's assessment (professionals though they are). This lad's future hinges on it.
It seems that, rather than Rabar Hamad's age being decided with expert help, expert opinion has been dismissed!
I'm not surprised he has disappeared. The poor young chap must be worried sick. I admire his friends and hope that he is being looked after and is safe and well.
Ivor Rash, Oldham (16/08/2010 at 15:29)
So you admire people who break the law? Should you be the victim of crime, would you have the same admiration for the friends of that offender who helped him/her evade the law? I doubt it. Which laws do you condone being broken? Immigration, obviously. Speeding? Theft? Robbery? How about rape? Assault? Maybe the fact the he disappeared indicates his true background - that of a 20 year old illegal immigrant.
Master of Nothing, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 09:20)
If this decision is based on Council staff opinion, then I'm deeply concerned. Yet another example of "I've said it it, therefore it must be fact" style decisions coming out of the public sector.
I'll happily support the group, and encourage Rabar. I also hope that the Council decides to take note of EXPERT opinion before making (what could be) a serious mistake. Wishful thinking...
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 10:03)
He was to be deported and you support the group helping keep an illegal immigrant, was you a member of the raol moat group aswell and the terrorist release group for the lockabie bomber, they might be worse offences but the principal is the same.
Acid, Chadderton (16/08/2010 at 13:16)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 16:34)
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (16/08/2010 at 09:26)
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (16/08/2010 at 09:28)
london sucks, the green side of manchester (16/08/2010 at 09:35)
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (16/08/2010 at 10:42)
Ivor Rash, Oldham (16/08/2010 at 15:29)
'96 and '01, The Double Whammy Years (16/08/2010 at 09:54)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 11:48)
Ignoramus, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:43)
Acid, Chadderton (17/08/2010 at 00:11)
Try telling that to the author of the first comment then.
"To be a looney left you have to disagree with someone who isnt. And vice versa"
That explanation applies to just about every belief under the sun.
The Vermin Slayer, Everywhere (16/08/2010 at 10:08)
Sounds like a bright lad whatever his age. Send a deadbeat Oldham benefit recipient back to Iraq in his place, perhaps a super obese example of modern Britain's 'poor'.
And does that include "deadbeats" from our ethnic communities or just from the "white" community?
As for this bogus "asylum" seeker who has been freeloading off the Btitish taxpayer for long enough I hope that the Police and the Border Control Agency when they find him, and they will, deport him immediately without any further expensive appeal. As for the appeasers and apologists who are protecting him I hope that all of them no matter how many there are are punished severely.
Chris R, Irlam (16/08/2010 at 10:34)
Enthusiasm Curbed (16/08/2010 at 10:44)
"He was to be deported and you support the group helping keep an illegal immigrant, was you a member of the raol moat group aswell and the terrorist release group for the lockabie bomber, they might be worse offences but the principal is the same."
You mean the PRINCIPLE is the same. But the principle is not the same, is it? A group of decent people showing goodwill and humanity to a scared young lad who's most probably a minor (according to an independent doctor) -- and who, if the opinion of Council "professionals" is taken into consideration instead, will face deportation -- is definitely not the same as some complete and utter fool and their ilk supporting a lone gunman with a grudge.
Also, in response to your other comment:
"between 13-16 why not say an actually age like the experts did, they didn't say betweem 17-20, just he is 20."
First of all, the view of the experts in this case has been overridden. It was the non-experts who "ruled" that he was 20. The experts gave an estimate because it is difficult to put an exact age upon someone. So not only are the Council overturning the opinion of someone more credible in favour of what suits them, they are also (apparently) claiming a degree of accuracy that it would be very difficult to claim! I would love to know what criteria one can use to claim a person's exact age.
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:11)
Yes it quite clearly is, your second point to this is irrelevent to the pricipal, I knew you would get the pricipal and the so called facts of the case mixed up.
"A group of decent people showing goodwill and humanity to a scared young lad who's most probably a minor"
He is currently a criminal, moat was a criminal, just because you think he should stay does not in the slightest change that fact so both groups are supporting criminals, this is why they are as bad. People supporting moat had reasons to support moat, you have reasons to support this man, you think your reasons are right, they thought theres were right. The only thing is that moats group did not try perverting the course of justice unlike this guys group so in fact one could argue that those who may be potentially helping hide this man are actually worse than moats supporters. If you think he is so innocent then a court of law will decide for him to stay here if not then he has to go and stopping this from happing is a serious crime, once a court has decided he is to be deported who gives this group the power to decide they can overule the courts?
"I would love to know what criteria one can use to claim a person's exact age"
I would suggest searching as there are many criteria that are used to determine someones age
salford attack (16/08/2010 at 11:24)
Charlie's Angel, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 11:40)
When he is found, he should be sent back to Iraq immediately accompanied by his Facebook friends.
BTW, looking at the picture above, there is no way he is only 16!
Ignoramus, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 11:58)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:13)
jimquk, longsight manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:22)
thoughtful, East of Manchester (16/08/2010 at 11:48)
What kind of person is it, that comes to the UK illegally, on the pretence that it is not safe, yet leaves his sister behind, presumably according to his story, to die?
To engage the UK's treaty obligations the state or their agents would have to be seeking the death or torture of a group people to which he belongs. There is no evidence that this is the case so his claim must fail.
Yes I'm sure he's a bright hardworking student, but if he is allowed to remain, then why not every other who comes. There are millions of asylum seekers, and plenty whose claims have failed, who have not been removed from the UK. If we allow every single hard luck story to affect us in the way some have allowed this story to, then we might as well just abandon any attempt of a pretence of border controls.
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (16/08/2010 at 14:01)
The Vermin Slayer, Everywhere (16/08/2010 at 12:10)
When he is found, he should be sent back to Iraq immediately accompanied by his Facebook friends
Brilliant idea. Why don't the appeasers and apologists who aid and abet the criminals who are bogus "asylum" seekers and other illegal immigrants freeloading off the British taxpayer just up and leave and move to Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries where they can provide "support" for their friends without the British taxpayer being made to support them. Such misguided people who are few and far between will not be missed by the majority of people in this country.
Englisc Stannes, North Manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:21)
Acid, Chadderton (16/08/2010 at 13:46)
Englisc Stannes, North Manchester (16/08/2010 at 17:26)
Acid, Chadderton (17/08/2010 at 00:04)
jimquk, longsight manchester (16/08/2010 at 12:38)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 16:54)
Acid, Chadderton (16/08/2010 at 13:12)
"Yes, he's about 16 or 17."
"Oh, that doesn't suit our intentions. We'll just go and ask a social worker instead."
Zingo, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 13:23)
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (16/08/2010 at 13:55)
Charlie's Angel, Manchester (16/08/2010 at 14:24)
It has been reported that he has been costing £4000 per week to keep him, and Wigan social services withdrew funding; so recently Oldham have been paying.
Maybe his loony liberal "friends" are funding him at the moment, hopefully they are, out of their own pockets.
The sooner he is removed the better, and yes he can take his "friends" too.
Jordy, Middleton (16/08/2010 at 14:47)
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (16/08/2010 at 16:11)
Didn't say that at all you did! He deserves nothing and I wouldn't help him if the money raised to keep him here got took away.
Ivor Rash, Oldham (16/08/2010 at 22:58)