Migrant drug dealer granted permission to stay in UK a day before admitting sexual assaults

Muhammed Izhan, a 22-year-old migrant who had been spared deportation to Pakistan after an immigration tribunal found that removal would harm his mental health, admitted via video link from prison to sexually assaulting two women in a busy Norwich high street in broad daylight in June. The offences were carried out in front of bystanders, and Izhan was fined £200 for the assaults. The admission followed a sequence in which an appeal allowing him to remain in Britain was granted the day before, marking a stark turn in a case already entangled with security and public-safety considerations.

Earlier, Izhan had been sentenced to 30 months in prison for his role in a 'sophisticated' drugs ring that dealt class A and B drugs. His deportation to Pakistan had been signed off in May 2024, but the immigration tribunal later ruled that removing him would have a negative impact on his mental health and could trigger further drug-related behavior. In allowing him to stay, Upper Tribunal Judge Luke Bulpitt noted Izhan’s school achievements and his involvement in sports as part of his rehabilitation history, saying there was a high likelihood of significant deterioration in his mental health if he were deported. The judge highlighted Izhan’s role as a representative of his school by playing rugby and earning awards for sporting achievement, as well as his ADHD diagnosis. Izhan had come to the UK at age seven with his mother and brothers in 2010, later living in East Anglia with his father. While at times disruptive—he was suspended in 2015 and eventually expelled from his school—the judge concluded that his ADHD, PTSD and general vulnerability would make deportation untenable, and he was granted a right to family life in Britain.

Officials indicated that another bid would be made to deport the 22-year-old from Cringleford, Norfolk, following the new guilty plea and the initial decision to allow him to stay. In a reaction that underscored political tensions around immigration and crime, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick told the Sun that the system was a sick joke on the British people and that the solution was to deport the individual involved. Jenrick’s comments reflected ongoing disagreement among policymakers about how to balance humanitarian considerations with public safety and border control.

Izhan’s background, including his long residence in Britain and his family life, has been used by supporters to argue for a nuanced approach to deportation decisions where mental health and social ties are weighed against criminal activity and security concerns. The case has drawn attention to how immigration decisions intersect with criminal prosecutions and how courts assess the potential impact of removal on an individual’s health and behavior. Critics say that granting asylum or temporary leave to remain in such contexts can complicate efforts to deter crime, while supporters argue that deportation alone does not address underlying health or social needs that may contribute to criminal behavior.

For Norwich and the surrounding region, the development has added to a broader debate about how cities handle crime and migrant populations, particularly when individuals have already served prison terms and now face complex immigration decisions. Legal experts note that once a deportation order has been signed off and then reversed on health grounds, any subsequent criminal activity can trigger renewed legal actions, including fresh deportation proceedings and requests for review of the individual’s status. The case also illustrates the challenges of coordinating between the criminal justice system and immigration authorities when a person’s legal status is in flux.

Izhan’s supporters emphasize his early life in the UK, his school and sporting achievements, and the role of mental-health care in his case. Opponents contend that the public safety implications of allowing someone with a criminal record to remain should be weighed heavily against humanitarian considerations. The authorities have declined further comment beyond confirming the ongoing process to determine his status and potential deportation, pending the outcome of the latest legal proceedings.

As the legal narrative evolves, observers will be watching how the courts and Home Office reconcile Izhan’s health disclosures, his criminal history, and his ties to Britain in deciding whether he remains in the country or is removed. The case has already prompted renewed attention to the balance between compassionate immigration policy and the need to uphold public safety in busy urban centers like Norwich.