The “chicken nuggets” case illustrates how misleading reporting can distort public understanding of human rights law and immigration appeals. A well-informed debate needs to be grounded in accurate evidence, the law and a proper understanding of how the appeals system works.
Background
Over the past year, the story of an Albanian criminal who could not be deported from the UK because his son dislikes foreign chicken nuggets has made headlines in a range of publications and has been the subject of political commentary. The appellant in the case was sentenced in 2017 to two years’ imprisonment and, facing deportation, he appealed. Decisions about deportation – and appeals against deportation – rely on rules set by Parliament, including the “family life” exception under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This explainer sets out the current UK law on the deportation of foreign national offenders applicable to this case and analyses the three legal decisions at the heart of it. It describes the initial decision in the First-tier Tribunal, the Home Secretary’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and the new First-tier Tribunal decision issued in March 2026.
It also considers media reporting and political commentary about the case and a more widespread pattern of misleading and/or inaccurate reporting about immigration tribunal cases, the UK’s system of immigration appeals, and the role played by the ECHR, referring to research based on monitoring of UK media from January to June 2025 and to the latest available Home Office statistics.
Key Points
→ The claim that an Albanian criminal, Klevis Disha, avoided deportation because his son dislikes foreign chicken nuggets is false. The tribunal decisions were based on extensive evidence about the child’s behavioural, educational and developmental needs, and the excessively severe consequences for him whether he moved to Albania or remained in the UK without his father.
→ The “chicken nuggets” evidence was never determinative of the case. It was cited only as one example of the child’s wider sensory difficulties, and the Upper Tribunal explicitly found that it came nowhere near the level of harshness required to prevent deportation.
→ Far-reaching changes, including UK withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), are being proposed by some politicians and commentators in the context of misleading representations of human rights law and its application in individual cases.
→ The “chicken nuggets” case underlines the need for a well-informed public debate based on accurate data and a sound understanding of the law. It illustrates a wider problem of misleading reporting about immigration appeals and the European Convention on Human Rights, which can distort understanding both of the legal tests judges apply and of how rarely human rights appeals against deportation succeed.
About the project
This is part of a series of explainers published through the project "Human Rights: Informing the UK Debate”, which aims to improve the quality of public discourse on human rights by providing expert content grounded in robust evidence and rigorous analysis. It seeks to identify and respond to inaccurate or misleading reporting or commentary about human rights. It also explores what human rights mean for ordinary people in their everyday lives, and for the values they care about such as security, dignity, accountability, democracy and national sovereignty.
The project is a collaboration between the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (University of Oxford), the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights (University of Oxford), and Middlesex University. The project is funded by a gift from the Sigrid Rausing Trust.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily of the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, the University of Oxford or its funders.
