对于移民来说,在英国找工作,雇主可能不看学历和经验,而是先看你是否有在英国合法工作的权利(Right to Work)。
没有这个,理论上就不能合法工作,除非雇主愿意担保雇员。在当前的大环境下,办理工签的确是越来越难。
听起来好像大家都懂这个规则,但现实中,总有人敢挑战底线。最近,英国法院就审理了一个离谱到像电视剧的案件——在一家NHS医院里,一名男移民竟然冒用女护士的身份上岗,并且连续在急诊室干了两个月!

“我叫Joyce,但我是个男人!”
故事发生在英格兰的切斯特医院(Countess of Chester Hospital)。
那天,一位病人觉得眼前一幕有点奇怪:这位穿着护士制服、自称“Joyce”的人,怎么看都不像一位女护士。
于是病人问了句:“你真的是Joyce吗?”
结果这位“护士”一脸坦然地回答:“我叫Joyce,但我是个男人。”
这句堪比英剧台词的回答,逐渐揭开了“Joyce”的真面目——其实是33岁的尼日利亚籍男子Lucius Njoku。
身份借来的,班也借来的
真正的“Joyce”——Joyce George,同样来自尼日利亚,是一名护士。她通过一家外包中介拿到了在NHS医院的工作机会。
然而,她自己并没有去上班,而是把自己的身份和工作机会借给了Njoku。
于是,两人玩起了“身份合伙人”的套路:
Joyce 提供身份、证件、NHS工作号;
Njoku 穿上制服,拿着她的名牌去上班。
两个月里,Njoku顶替Joyce的名字在医院急诊科帮病人洗澡、量体温、换衣服,表现还挺敬业。
甚至,同事们没人怀疑他不是“Joyce”。

真相揭晓:一场荒唐的“身份合作”
可笑的是,这场身份骗局直到两个月后才被揭穿。医院在经过调查后报警,警方追查到了真正的Joyce住处,结果在她家里——直接逮到了Njoku本人。
警察搜出了两人手机,里面全是他们互相协调班表的聊天记录。比如“你明天那班我去”“记得打卡”之类的消息,看得办案人员都无语。
最后,Njoku大方承认了自己冒用他人身份工作的事实。而真Joyce呢?她在被起诉后直接逃回了尼日利亚,英国法院随后发出了逮捕令。
Njoku的辩解:我其实是有资格的
案件在切斯特地方法院(Chester Magistrates’ Court)审理,Njoku被控“虚假陈述欺诈”(Fraud by False Representation)。
在法庭上,Njoku的律师辩解道:“Njoku本身就是一名合格的护士,只是英国的‘职业背景审查’(safeguarding checks)还没批下来,所以才想着先借朋友的身份去上班。”
也就是说,Njoku不是“不会干护士”这一工作,而是自己“等不及了”。
Njoku和妻子
而现在的Njoku因为案件影响,已经放弃了护理行业,转而在汽车制造厂Vauxhall做工。
法庭听取证据后,法官Jack McGarva说得很直白:“你欺骗性地进入了一个需要严格审查的岗位。这种行为破坏了整个体系的信任。”
虽然Njoku在工作期间没造成任何伤害,也没收到投诉,但这不代表他无罪。
法院最终判决:
16周监禁,缓刑12个月;
80小时社区劳动;
支付239英镑的法庭费用与附加费。
有莎粉可能想问,这种冒用身份的行为,为什么只是缓刑,而不是真正入狱服刑?
其实,法官在量刑时考虑了几个因素:
他主动认罪;
工作期间无任何患者投诉或事故;
没有其他犯罪记录;
案发后已离开护理行业。
所以,法院选择了缓刑加社区服务的从轻处罚。但这并不意味着他“无事一身轻”——有案底在身、身份受限,未来想在医疗体系工作基本没戏。

Njoku的移民路:有了案底会被驱逐吗?
根据报道,Njoku最初是以学生身份来到英国的,后来妻子获得了NHS的工作签证(Health Care Worker Visa),他就成为了妻子的陪工签(Dependent Visa)持有人。
其实,这类签证其实允许持有人在英国工作,但必须以真实身份、合法途径被雇用。
而他现在的问题是用他人名义进行工作,就等于触犯了移民法规。
至于他是否会被驱逐出境?目前还没有定论。英国移民局往往会在刑事判决后再进行独立审查。
但实际上,Nojiku其实是在英国是有合法工作的身份的,他并没有“打黑工”。也就是说,他更重要的问题是在于“用他人身份”工作的情况。
属于什么罪?法律怎么定?
从法律角度看,Njoku的行为非常典型地踩中了两条红线:
1. 虚假陈述欺诈(Fraud by False Representation)
根据《2006年英国欺诈法》(Fraud Act 2006)第2条,如果一个人以虚假信息或身份获取经济利益,就构成犯罪。
Njoku冒用朋友身份上班,领取薪资,本质上就是以虚假身份获取报酬。即便他工作认真、没有造成损害,也依然属于刑事欺诈。
2.移民法下的非法就业问题
虽然Njoku是“dependent visa”持有人,有在英国工作的权利,但这项权利仅限于以真实身份就业。
但用朋友的名字工作,其实与非法打工(Illegal Working)无异。
这个案件看似荒唐,其实暴露出很多移民在英国常见的误区。不少人以为:“反正我有签证,我朋友有工作机会,帮他上几天班没事吧?”
这是不正确的。在英国,工作权是个人的、不可转让的权利。哪怕是夫妻、兄妹、朋友,也不能共享。
如果被查到:
工作者本人会被控欺诈或非法就业;
提供身份的人,也会被控“协助欺诈”或“共谋”。
而且,一旦涉及NHS、教育、儿童照护等敏感行业,处罚会更重。

丽莎小结:身份别乱“借”
Lucius Njoku可能没想到,自己借朋友的名字“临时代班”,最后却成了法庭上的被告。
他没有伤害任何人,却触碰了英国法律最敏感的底线——身份的真实性。对移民来说,身份不仅是合法居留的凭证,更是工作的生命线。
丽莎在这里再次提醒广大移民朋友:身份不能外借,否则后患无穷。如您在移民方面有任何问题,欢迎随时咨询丽莎移民部。
好的,今天的文章就到这边,如果您对于文章内容,或者其他英国法律方面,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 —— 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:

 
				 
															 
								 
								![Gold coin Stack On the table save money Taking care of money - Lisa's Law Solicitors 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) 
								