之前我们聊过：英国五年、十年定居路线，未来可能面临政策上的收紧。想要重温的可以点击这里《英国定居路线要变？5年变7年？10年不算数了？》
但是光知道“可能会变”还不够，真正关键的是，你现在能做些什么来提前准备？
很多人以为：等到政策真的收紧，再准备也不迟。但真的是这样吗？
👉 文件要不要从现在开始保存？
👉 出入境记录是不是会成为隐患？
👉 如果快要满足条件了，申请时机该怎么把握？
👉 还没到条件的人，现在该做什么？
这期视频，我们不再讨论“政策会不会变”，而是告诉你在任何变化之前，你必须马上采取的关键步骤。
点开视频，看看你是不是已经准备好了！
《申请英国定居？现在就要准备这些！》
莎粉们喜欢我们的影片吗？之后，丽莎还会继续以简单平易的方式，和大家科普更多英国法律信息。
想要学习更多，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，英国法律的更多方面，还有任何疑问，都可以直接咨询丽莎律师行。
> 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")
