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1名法律助理（Legal Assistant）。
Vincent 蔡卓弘 法律助理（Legal Assistant）
Vincent在SOAS University of London完成法学学士学位。加入丽莎之前，他先后在伦敦和香港多家律所实习，涉猎公司法、财产法、知识产权法领域，并通过短期见习深化法律洞察力。
除专业追求外，Vincent热衷体育健身。自幼参与篮球、橄榄球及足球等团队运动的他，至今仍通过健身房锻炼、跑步及团体运动保持活力，视此为放松身心、维持平衡的最佳方式。
Vincent对艺术、时尚与音乐同样充满热忱。自2022年起他已观赏逾十场现场音乐会，例如Nas and Kendrick Lamar等的演出。他曾随Moncler品牌出席伦敦时装周活动，热衷参观博物馆，童年时期还担任过模特，这些经历彰显了他与时尚创意领域的深厚渊源。
Vincent精通多国语言，能流利使用英语、粤语及普通话，并因家族源自福建的背景，亦能说闽南语。
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")
