To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
![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")
