SCOTTISH judges have delivered yet another blow to the “hostile environment” immigration policies of Prime Minister Theresa May.

In the latest of a long-running series of judgements against the Home Office dating from May’s time in charge of it, three judges at the Court of Session have delivered a withering criticism of an immigration tribunal which “erred in law” in its decision.

In the case involving a Turkish man married to a Scottish woman, May as Home Secretary decided in 2015 that the man should be returned to his native land despite having lived lawfully in the UK since 2007 and being married to his Scottish wife in 2014, having been in a relationship with her since 2009.

Orhan Mendirez had applied for leave to remain in Scotland with his wife as his sponsor, but May refused because at that time Donna Mendirez had her own business that only earned her £12,500, some £6000 less than the immigration rules demanded.

Even though an accountant said Mendirez’s business was projected to earn £25,000, May still refused the application and subsequent immigration tribunals upheld her action and refused.

Now the Mendirez case has resulted in a judgement by three judges at the Appeal Court in the Court of Session who have ordered that the case be heard again by a fresh tribunal consisting of different judges who have been told to properly consider the Mendirez’s right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Lord Menzies, sitting with Lady Paton and Lord Glennie, noted that Mendirez’s representative had argued before the immigration tribunal that if Mendirez was removed there would be significant interference with his rights, whether or not the removal was temporary.

“There would be interference with the private life of both the appellant and his wife,” noted the judge.

Allowing the Appeal, Lord Menzies wrote: “Not only does the First tier Tribunal (FTT) judge not appear to have considered the effect on the appellant’s wife’s private life and family life if she went to Turkey with her husband, but the judge does not consider or analyse the difficulties which would face the appellant and his wife if they went to Turkey. The appellant was aged about 53 at the date of the hearing before the FTT, and had not lived nor worked in Turkey since 2007. There was no consideration given to the difficulties that he would inevitably experience in finding a job, given his age and the length of his absence from Turkey. No consideration was give to the difficulties of finding accommodation in Turkey.

“No consideration was given to the fact that the appellant was a non-practising Muslim with a

non-Muslim wife.”