Judge Torpedoes Migrants Last-Minute ‘Bisexual’ Claim

A British tribunal ruled that a convicted child rapist must be deported after rejecting his late claim of bisexuality as unproven and finding he remains a danger to the public.

Story Snapshot

Brighton Crown Court sentenced Karam Majdi to seven years for raping a 14-year-old girl in 2018.
Majdi later claimed he is bisexual and would face persecution if returned to Egypt.
The Home Office argued the sexuality claim was a fabrication without evidence.
A judge rejected the appeal, saying removal serves the public interest and risk remains.

Conviction, Sentence, and Why Deportation Followed

Brighton Crown Court convicted Karam Majdi of raping a 14-year-old girl and sentenced him to seven years in custody in 2018. The offense involved a child, which UK law treats as a grave public safety concern. That kind of sentence triggers criminal deportation rules for foreign nationals. The state then weighs public risk against any human rights claims. The baseline is simple: removal is required unless very strong reasons say otherwise.

Majdi fought removal by saying he would face harm if sent to Egypt. He said he is bisexual and would be targeted there. He claimed past relationships with two men. The Home Office checked his history and told the tribunal that he had provided no convincing proof of bisexuality. Officials said his record showed only attraction to girls, and they called the new claim an “embellishment” made after 2021 to block deportation.

The Tribunal’s Findings on Sexuality and Risk

A judge reviewed the evidence and rejected the appeal. The decision stated that Majdi failed to prove he is bisexual. The judge wrote that he was not satisfied the claim was true. The decision also recorded that Majdi remained a danger to the community, and that his removal “was and remains in the public interest.” That language signals a high risk assessment and a strong tilt toward deportation under the legal framework for foreign offenders.

Based on reporting from the hearing, the judge gave weight to the lack of proof for same-sex relationships. Claims about identity must clear a credibility bar. The United Kingdom’s own guidance tells decision makers to look for coherence, consistency, and evidence that fits known country conditions. When evidence is thin or late, credibility drops. That is common in sexual identity cases, and it often decides the outcome.

Why This Case Struck a Nerve in Public Debate

This case blends three hot wires: child safety, migration control, and sexuality-based asylum claims. People read “rape of a 14-year-old” and want swift removal. That reaction aligns with a core duty of the state: protect the innocent first. When the Home Office says a late sexual identity claim lacks proof, many readers see a tactic, not a truth. The tribunal’s finding that danger remains only hardens that view and supports the public interest in deportation.

Some ask whether Egypt is safe for bisexual men. Reports describe harsh treatment of sexual minorities in practice, even when laws look neutral on paper. But the tribunal did not reach a general country-risk ruling for bisexual people. It decided the threshold issue first: is the person bisexual? The judge said no. Without that, the protection claim falls away. That sequence follows United Kingdom law and common sense case handling.

What This Means for Future Cases

Two lessons stand out. First, serious crimes make deportation likely unless the person brings strong, consistent, and early evidence of a protected risk. Second, sexual identity claims win on proof, not slogans. Messages, photos, partner testimony, and a timeline that fits known facts can carry weight. Late shifts without records usually fail. For citizens, the signal is clear: the system can remove dangerous offenders while still hearing real claims under set rules.