博客

street view of london with double decker bus

工党玩真的，一年内抓8千黑工，遣返上千人！为历史之最！

2025年10月29日

阅读更多 »

Modern airport interior with aeroplane flying over

廉航”敛财新招”？网站崩溃不让值机，现场加钱才给登机

2025年10月28日

阅读更多 »

justice lawyer in black suit pointing finger and knocking wooden judge gavel with documents on workplace desk in courtroom office occupation business justice law and legal service concept

伦敦一餐厅多次被投诉，如今被禁止放音乐？

2025年10月27日

阅读更多 »

Asian Mother scolds her son while travel A child cries a woman shakes her finger because of the boy bad behavior Rule of conduct boy cover his face and cry

离婚后，想带儿子回国看外公！10天都不给批？

2025年10月26日

阅读更多 »

Judge male judge in a courtroom striking the gavel

震惊！利用铁路系统漏洞，两名中国留学生诈骗超15万镑

2025年10月25日

阅读更多 »

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.

英通胀企稳，政府债却创新高！网上宣扬“逃税方案”被判刑

2025年10月24日

阅读更多 »

London skyline

不只永居！英入籍要改积分制，更难？工签雇主成本涨32%

2025年10月23日

阅读更多 »

雇佣合同里，最容易被忽视的那些条款

2025年10月23日

阅读更多 »

母亲的遗产，父亲在外的私生子女也能来瓜分？

2025年10月22日

阅读更多 »

Extinction Rebellion activists marching next to Downing Street with White Baby Prams in front of Police officers

一条路，9年纠纷！英国邻居吵不过，就开枪？

2025年10月22日

阅读更多 »

丽莎律师行定期发布实用文章，欢迎关注我们，第一时间获取最新法律资讯！

如果您有任何疑问，欢迎直接联络我们，提出任何法律咨询。

订阅我们的电子报

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar Chinese

14 6 月, 2026

45万英镑遗产只留妹妹母女！英国知名作家怒上法庭

11 6 月, 2026

中国车，英国造！奇瑞计划在英造车；敬业钢铁向英方索赔！

11 6 月, 2026

商业纠纷，房产争议到加密货币诈骗：诉讼律师如何解纷

10 6 月, 2026

打砸抢烧！英国再因移民矛盾失控；移民执法继续严查！

June 2024

欢迎咨询我们，并了解我们如何提供帮助。