The judge disagreed with you, and because the Home Office chose to treat it this way instead of treating it more reasonable it wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money and reduced its tax revenues.

> This article attempts to paint a picture of the poor child, but the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid.

If the law is so clear, one would think the Home Office wouldn't have treated him this way only for a judge to find he should have another chance, nor presumably, would the Home Office have wrongly claimed a rule that does exist doesn't exist.

When the Home Office itself fails to get this right, it is completely unreasonable to assume that applicants will.