Two recent immigration tribunal decisions have highlighted important points of principle in UK immigration law: the requirement for procedural fairness in decision-making and the legal distinction between a grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP).
Both cases demonstrate the need for applicants and their representatives to be vigilant in challenging decisions where the Home Office may have acted outside established legal boundaries.
Procedural Fairness in Hong Kong BN(O) Applications
In R (KW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR-2024-LON-002169, the Upper Tribunal considered a refusal under the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route. The applicant, a Chinese national from Hong Kong, had been refused on the basis of a previous conviction. The Home Office gave decisive weight to a Hong Kong Court of Appeal judgment it had located independently online, without putting this material to the applicant for comment.
The Tribunal found this to be a clear breach of procedural fairness, observing that the applicant had effectively been “ambushed” by evidence not disclosed to them.
While the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balajigari v Home Secretary [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was not directly applicable, it was considered a useful authority on fairness in immigration decision-making. The refusal was therefore quashed, and the case must now be reconsidered by the Home Office.
This judgment reinforces that applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to any evidence relied upon by decision-makers. Failure to do so will amount to procedural unfairness, providing strong grounds for judicial review.
The Legal Status of Biometric Residence Permits
The second case, Guerrero (s104(4A); statutory abandonment; right of appeal) [2025] UKUT 00276 (IAC), concerned an asylum seeker who received a refusal decision but was subsequently issued with a BRP stating “Refugee leave to remain.”
The First-tier Tribunal initially ruled that the BRP constituted a grant of leave, thereby treating the pending asylum appeal as abandoned under section 104(4A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal clarified the legal position. A BRP does not in itself grant leave to remain, it is an administrative document that evidences an earlier grant of leave.
Where a BRP is issued in error, no grant of leave arises, and an appeal cannot be deemed abandoned.
The Tribunal also confirmed that decisions to treat appeals as abandoned under section 104(4A) are not “excluded decisions,” and therefore fall within the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case will be re-heard.
This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between the substantive grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a BRP. Mistaken issuance of documents cannot override statutory rights of appeal.
Conclusion
Both cases serve as reminders of the importance of legal safeguards in the immigration system when it comes to immigration tribunal decisions. The KW case highlights that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond to evidence before adverse decisions are made. The Guerrero case confirms that a BRP is not determinative of immigration status and cannot substitute for an actual grant of leave.
These judgments illustrate the value of expert legal representation in holding the Home Office to account where decision-making falls short of the standards required by law.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
