丽莎继昨天（4月22日）的文章中介绍了有关英国离婚－养老金在离婚财产分割的重要性，今天我们将继续说明：父母赠予和离婚财产分割之间的关系。
一连11集的视频，带莎粉走进英国离婚法的世界，解答您的疑问。
《英国离婚法律》EP6 – 父母赠予和离婚财产分割
通过上面的视频，莎粉们是否更了解“父母赠予和离婚财产分割”了呢？我们下一集将会接着讨论 – 遗产与乐透财产分割，敬请期待！
想要学习更多相关的内容，记得关注我们！
丽莎还要提醒，所有我们制作的视频，都会同步发布在丽莎的官方YouTube平台。如果想要观看更多丽莎视频，可以关注我们（丽莎律师行）https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPmpxpJNXwSfgy7_z6ljKmg
我们也有英文版YouTube（Lisa’s Law Solicitor）：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3MHpkVaHm6EsGunDg1xUpQ
如果对于视频内容，英国移民的更多方面，还有任何疑问，都可以直接咨询丽莎律师行。
觉得丽莎的文章不错的话，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。
> 📱 丽莎的“掌上律师”服务 📱 <
如果莎粉们对于丽莎的“掌上律师”服务有任何疑问，或者想要了解如何使用丽莎APP，莎粉们可点击这里 ↓
丽莎以简易图表，一步一步带您使用丽莎律师行的专属APP。
您和我们只有一键之隔。委托我们，您完全可以更加省时省力。对于住得远的莎粉，您更可以省下车费和舟车劳顿。丽莎只想为您做得更好。您说，我们做！委托丽莎，从来没有如此简单过！
如果莎粉们对于丽莎的“掌上律师”服务有任何疑问，或者有其他法律问题，都可以直接联系丽莎律师行（www.lisaslaw.co.uk），或者通过我们旗下官网和《丽莎知道》微信公众号（UK-LISA），官方微博（www.weibo.com/lisaslaw）咨询丽莎。
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：lisaslaw003
《丽莎知道》官方微博：www.weibo.com/lisaslaw；手机版：www.weibo.cn/lisaslaw
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")
