Brazilian migrant wins immigration appeal after claiming he would be killed by Latin America's biggest drug cartel after having fling with gangster's ex-wife

By ANDY DOLAN, GENERAL REPORTER Published: 12:44, 13 April 2026 | Updated: 12:44, 13 April 2026 A Brazilian migrant has won an immigration case after arguing he can't be deported because he had a fling with a woman who was married to a member of Latin America's biggest drug cartel. The Brazilian man said the woman's gangster ex-husband was part of the notorious Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), which is said to control a drug trade worth a billion dollars. The migrant said that it would be unsafe for him to return to Brazil in case the gang member found out about his relationship with her because of the violent nature of the gang. The PCC - which translates to First Capital Command - is Brazil's largest organised crime group and is known worldwide for its class A trade, supplying Europe with a lot of its cocaine. The cartel's annual revenue has been estimated to be around $900 million (£669m), according to São Paulo state authorities, and it has over 40,000 lifetime members and 60,000 contractors. It has a reputation of being violent, with murder and inhumane treatment and torture being commonplace. Now a judge sitting at the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber has granted an appeal against a lower tribunal’s decision to refuse the migrant’s asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights claim.  It means the migrant, who was granted anonymity, can now have his immigration case heard again after a judge found there had been errors in the First Tier Tribunal judgement. At the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (above) a judge ruled there had been errors in law made by a lower tribunal around the migrant's evidence  But, he has now won an appeal after an immigration judge found that there had been errors in the First Tier Tribunal judgement. The migrant - anonymised as 'DL' - said that he feared the PCC because of a brief relationship with a woman whose former husband is said to have been a PCC member. The woman, referred to as C, and the ex-husband, referred to as S, remain anonymous for legal reasons. The Brazilian also said that he owed an outstanding debt to a moneylender, who he feared would use violence on him. He said that he had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and post‑traumatic stress disorder. He contended that his mental health condition would amount to a very significant obstacle to his reintegration were he to return to Brazil. The court heard he entered the UK in January 2023 with leave to enter as a visitor and after making two applications to remain, he was arrested as an overstayer in August 2024. The Brazilian tried to claim asylum, but this was refused. It was found that he would have no issue of reintegration in Brazil because he had spent most of his life there, spoke the language, and had family support available. But Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Harbinder Athwal ruled there had been errors in law made by a previous ruling around the migrant's evidence that the ex-husband of the woman he had a brief relationship with was part of the PCC. The judge said the First Tier Tribunal judge found ‘that it was not plausible that (DL's) partner C would have risked disclosing their relationship by inviting him to a barbecue if her ex-husband was a leader of the PCC gang.’ Judge Athwal said that there had been too much weight placed on an 'inconsistency' in evidence from the migrant when he said that the way he knew the ex-husband was part of the PCC was through his brother being told. In an asylum letter he said that his family had told him but did not mention his brother. Judge Athwal said: "In reaching her conclusion, the Judge placed weight on a material factual error, namely her finding that (DL) had given inconsistent accounts of how he knew that S was associated with PCC. "That finding was itself inconsistent with her earlier conclusion that (DL's) account was consistent with the expert evidence. "The Judge erred by firstly treating this aspect of the evidence as inconsistent; and secondly in making inconsistent findings about this evidence. "In consequence, the Judge did not correctly evaluate the actual evidence in the round. "There is a real risk that the factual error increased the weight attached to the plausibility finding concerning the barbecue. "Taken together, these matters led to a failure properly to consider all the evidence cumulatively. I therefore find that the Judge made a material error of law.’ A new hearing will take place to determine whether DL should be granted asylum or be deported. No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.