丽莎团队快讯！
丽莎律师行（www.lisaslaw.co.uk）迎来新成员，在莎粉们持续关注和支持下，新增2名律师（Solicitor）。
Alisha Panue 律师（Solicitor）
Alisha于2024年取得英格兰及威尔士执业律师资格。自2017年起在住宅地产领域积累丰富经验后，Alisga就选择专注于该专业方向，她乐于协助客户度过这段常伴压力却充满期待的时期。
Alisha的业务涵盖住宅交易全流程，从永久产权与租赁产权的买卖，到再抵押贷款及股权转让。同时精通房东与租客事务，例如租约延期等事宜。
工作之余，Alisha热爱旅行，沉浸于好书之中，并通过瑜伽等健身活动保持活力。
Alisha精通英语。
Billy 麦晓然 律师（Solicitor）
Billy在2004年于香港大学专业进修学院完成法律研究文凭课程，并取得香港特别行政区法律行政人员资格。其后于2012年获诺丁汉特伦特大学法学士学位。在2022年，Billy以优异成绩完成卡迪夫大学法律实务课程（LPC）。Billy于2025年4月获准成为英格兰及威尔士执业律师。目前计划在伦敦大学学院攻读公证实务课程，目标是未来取得公证人资格。
在加入丽莎之前，Billy在香港担任法律执行官逾十年，从事综合法律业务，涵盖民事诉讼、家事法及遗嘱与遗产认证领域。现在，Billy在英国主要专注于住宅产权转让业务，同时协助处理部分民事诉讼事务。
Billy精通英语及粤语。
在未来的日子里，丽莎律师行（www.lisaslaw.co.uk）将会继续秉持著高度的热忱、耐心和诚信，为莎粉和客户们提供最专业和细致的服务。
同时，丽莎也希望通过《丽莎知道》（UK-LISA）平台，向一直以来给予我们无尽支持的您们，表达由衷的感激。
正因有你们，丽莎团队才能一直强大，收纳更多人才，为莎粉们提供更高质量和多元化的服务！
> 丽莎律师行 —— 最具国际化视野的英国华人律师行，专精于商业、房产、移民、家庭和诉讼法。<
丽莎律师行联络邮箱：info@lisaslaw.co.uk
联络电话：020 7928 0276
联络微信号：lisaslaw007
扫一扫，《丽莎知道》微信公众号：
![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.
Namecard for article - Angel Wan in English
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.](https://lisaslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AdobeStock_284883829-scaled.jpeg "Gold coin Stack On the table save money Taking care of money - Lisa's Law Solicitors")
