Nicosia, Cyprus. A local court on Friday reportedly suspended the deportation of an asylum seeker convicted of domestic violence, citing the best interests of his two children and the principle of non-refoulement.
Background and immigration status
According to media reports, the man, an Egyptian national, arrived in Cyprus in 2013 with a valid work permit. After the permit expired, and following unsuccessful attempts to renew it or obtain asylum, he has been residing in the Republic illegally since 2015. He has two children, aged three and six, with his Cypriot wife.
Work permit request
In September 2025, the defendant’s lawyer, Natasa Charalambidou, contacted the Deputy Ministry of Migration seeking permission for her client to apply for a work permit. Although the request was approved, he did not proceed with the application.
Criminal case and prohibited immigrant designation
An indictment was filed before the Nicosia District Court on charges including domestic violence and common assault against his minor child, relating to offences committed in 2023. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of up to five months, after which authorities declared him a “prohibited immigrant.”
Court ruling and appeal
During the deportation trial, Charalambidou raised concerns about violations of his right to family life and privacy. She argued that the social welfare service should give its opinion, that the best interests of his children should be considered, and that his wife had given him a “second chance.”
The court, while acknowledging the severity of the convictions, approved the appeal, citing the international human rights principle of non-refoulement. The court said that, without overlooking the seriousness of the criminal offences for which the applicant was convicted, the administration should re-examine the case and uphold non-refoulement, taking into account the best interests of his minor children with the assistance of the Social Welfare Services.
What impact do you think the court’s decision could have on similar deportation cases involving family considerations?
