工作之外，我们也很会玩！丽莎的精彩社交活动回顾
作为一家重视团队精神和跨部门协作的公司，我们定期举办团队活动，让大家在日常工作外聚在一起，保持联系。随着混合办公和远程办公已成为许多人的常态，这些线下互动时刻比以往任何时候都更加重要。
最近的两次社交活动尤为精彩，复活节社交活动在金丝雀码头的Fairgame举行，而最近的夏季社交活动则在Shoreditch的Bounce举办。
正如其名，Fairgame汇聚了各种游乐场风格的游戏。同事们在各类游戏中展开激烈角逐，争夺最高分数，而特别高分的参与者还能获得丰厚奖品！
与此同时，在Bounce，我们拥有自己的私人区域，配备多张乒乓球桌。我们的优秀主持人组织了一场双人乒乓球锦标赛，队友们被随机分配，进一步提供了团队建设的机会。
当然我们还提供美食和酒水！
衷心感谢我们的社交委员会，他们花时间寻找最佳场地。作为一家近70人的公司且仍在持续增长，这并不总是容易的。此外，还要感谢在所有社交活动中接待我们的工作人员。
除此之外，丽莎全体团队也想要再次感谢所有莎粉、忠实顾客和合作伙伴们一直以来对于我们的支持与爱护。丽莎的一路成长脱离不开大家的关注和支持！
好的，今天就说到这边，如果您对于英国法律方面有任何疑问，都欢迎进一步咨询丽莎律师行。
任何英国税务方面的问题，也可以联系咨询丽莎会计行。
觉得丽莎的文章不错？请不要吝于点赞和转发！您的支持是丽莎继续前进的动力，我们将尽力为莎粉们提供最新最全的实用信息。
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")
