当歧视藏在语气里：她用沉默撼动法庭，打赢Boots！
在许多人的印象里，英国的工作环境总是平和、有礼、讲规则。 办公室里人人“please”和“tha […]
伦敦一套“恐怖房”拍卖价近百万英镑，引网友炸锅
最近，伦敦北部富裕的卡姆登（Camden）区有一套房产突然在网上走红，登上媒体各大头条。然而，它之所以爆红，并 […]
DWP又出错！女子被疯狂讨债五年，5千镑却不是她欠的？
在英国生活的人，大概都有过这样的体验：只要跟政府部门打交道，就得做好“慢慢等”的心理准备。本来半小时就能解决的 […]
移民局车站突击执法，工签被当黑工抓！程序失当遭打脸
现如今，英国右翼势力不断抬头，移民问题成了英国社会的“头等大事”。工党政府为了“安抚民心”，虽然已经增加了许多 […]
专业守护．真心相伴！丽莎律师行2025年大事记！
各位莎粉们，圣诞快乐！ 转眼之间，2026年的脚步已悄然临近。回望即将落幕的2025，丽莎律师行 […]
里夫斯提前锁定春季声明！英国新“雇佣法”获御准
各位莎粉周三好，欢迎点击《丽莎商法快讯》，本周需要重点关注的英国商业、商法信息有： 商业信心回暖，达到4个月以 […]
房产空置多年，房东不交商业地税！最终被罚20万英镑
很多商业房东可能都有这样的想法：房子空着没租出去，根本没赚钱，税的事情晚点再说也没关系吧？但在英格兰和威尔士， […]
福尔摩斯博物馆创始人太惨！出庭百余次，还欠妹妹50万镑诉讼费
大家对于伦敦贝克街（Baker Street, London）的夏洛克·福尔摩斯博物馆（Sherlock Ho […]
商家警惕！女子曾白吃白住逃单800英镑，一年后竟再次行骗
在英国做生意，老板们最不愿看到的事情之一，莫过于顾客逃单。然而，这类情况仍时有发生，让经营者颇感无奈。更令人咋 […]
英终降息,3年来最低点！董事伪造账单，获刑15个月
![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_284883829-1024x683.jpeg)
各位莎粉周五好，欢迎点击《丽莎商法快讯》，本周需要重点关注的英国商业、商法信息有： 英国通胀降至3.2%，生活 […]