雇佣合同里，最容易被忽视的那些条款
你签过的雇佣合同，真的“安全”吗？ 工资、工时、职位这些当然重要，但很多老板和员工都忽略了一些关 […]
母亲的遗产，父亲在外的私生子女也能来瓜分？
父母去世，对任何孩子来说，都是沉重的打击。除了悲痛之外，子女还必须冷静应对一系列身后事务。而就在这个敏感的时刻 […]
一条路，9年纠纷！英国邻居吵不过，就开枪？
在英格兰Hampshire郡一条房价动辄百万英镑的“百万富翁街”上，本该是安度晚年的退休老人们，没有选择喂喂鸟 […]
为同一雇主打两份工，77小时不休！被解雇，法院竟支持？
在英国，近年来生活成本危机愈演愈烈。房租飙升、物价高企、能源账单也是水涨船高，许多人为了多赚一点收入，不得不接 […]
英国婚前协议的5个你不知道的秘密
一听到“婚前协议”，你会想到什么？有人觉得那是明星、富豪才用得上的东西，也有人认为签了就是对爱情没信心。但真的 […]
伦敦“赃物黑市”大曝光：警方突袭120家店，32人被抓！
近年来，英国街头治安问题日益严峻，从地铁、超市到社区小店，偷盗事件频频发生。曾经让人安心购物的街区，如今常见小 […]
NHS出现“假护士”！移民冒用身份上班2个月却无人察觉？
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 W […]
逃单新技能曝光！客人用“冥币”买汉堡，还想让服务员找零
![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)
无论是经营商铺还是开设餐厅，诚信始终是立足之本。商家讲诚信做生意，也希望顾客同样以诚信相待。然而在当下经济本就 […]
想带两个孩子回中国探亲，法院却“狠心”拒绝？
咱们在英国生活的华人家庭中，很多都是跨国家庭。在感情和睦的时候，一家人能够接触不同国家文化，其实是一种非常珍贵 […]
英财相要征“单次财富税”；考虑放宽餐厅，酒吧营业时间
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8月经济微增，成G7中 […]