Abdul-Shokoor Ezedi, the suspect in the alkali attack, did not meet the requirements for asylum.

According to Home Office guidelines, it is believed that the man responsible for an alkali attack in south London should not have been granted asylum. Abdul-Shokoor Ezedi, an Afghan refugee, was convicted of sexual assault in 2018 in Newcastle, which should have disqualified him from asylum. Despite being placed on the Sex Offenders Register, his claim for asylum was approved after being rejected twice. Currently, the police are searching for Ezedi after the corrosive substance attack. The attack resulted in a mother and her two daughters being hospitalized, with the woman and her youngest daughter suffering potentially life-changing injuries. In addition to them, ten other people, including five police officers who responded to the incident, were also injured. Authorities have cautioned against approaching Ezedi and advised the public to dial emergency services. Ezedi arrived in the UK from Afghanistan in 2016 by lorry and had his initial asylum claim rejected later that year. He attempted a second claim, stating that he had converted to Christianity, which he believed would place him in danger if he returned to Afghanistan. However, his claim was rejected once again. Ezedi then appealed the decision, and a tribunal in Newcastle overturned it in 2020 based on a church witness's testimony that claimed Ezedi had genuinely converted to Christianity. However, by the time his claim was eventually granted in 2020, Ezedi had already been convicted of sexual assault and exposure, receiving a 45-week suspended prison sentence. He was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register from January 2018 for a period of 10 years. Immigration rules clearly state that permission to stay must be refused if the applicant has committed a criminal offence resulting in serious harm. Additionally, guidelines specify that individuals convicted of sexual offences are generally considered to have caused serious harm. Therefore, case workers dealing with asylum applications lack discretion in such cases. Due to the current instability following the return of the Taliban to power, enforced returns to Afghanistan, even in cases where asylum is denied, are presently suspended. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick suggested that Ezedi's asylum was likely granted by a judge rather than Home Office officials. Home Secretary James Cleverly has requested details about the case, including information on how Ezedi was granted asylum, to be provided by the end of Friday. Some within the Home Office view this case as an illustration of their frustration with the asylum tribunal system, whereby individuals are granted asylum despite having convictions in the UK. However, those who work with asylum seekers argue that individuals can still face a risk in their home country, making them genuine refugees, even if they have convictions in the UK. The Prime Minister's spokesperson asserted that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak does have confidence in the asylum system, highlighting the UK's history of welcoming individuals fleeing religious persecution. No comment was made regarding whether the spokesperson believed priests were too trusting in accepting asylum seekers' claims of religious conversion. They emphasized that there are systems and procedures in place to assess the credibility of these religious belief claims, ensuring that protection is granted only to those truly in need.