博客

Tired and frustrated african business man at workplace in office holding his head on hands

为同一雇主打两份工，77小时不休！被解雇，法院竟支持？

2025年10月22日

阅读更多 »

英国婚前协议的5个你不知道的秘密

2025年10月21日

阅读更多 »

伦敦“赃物黑市”大曝光：警方突袭120家店，32人被抓！

2025年10月21日

阅读更多 »

Asian male doctor talking in clinic room and handing a prescript

NHS出现“假护士”！移民冒用身份上班2个月却无人察觉？

2025年10月20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.

逃单新技能曝光！客人用“冥币”买汉堡，还想让服务员找零

2025年10月20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

想带两个孩子回中国探亲，法院却“狠心”拒绝？

2025年10月19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.

英财相要征“单次财富税”；考虑放宽餐厅，酒吧营业时间

2025年10月17日

阅读更多 »

Bearded young man drilling wall with hammer drill

租客擅自拆墙，房东气炸！长住八年就可以擅自改造出租房？

2025年10月17日

阅读更多 »

只因装厨房抽风设备，餐厅被罚250万英镑？！

2025年10月16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

孕期没收到入职周年祝贺，她怒告雇主歧视！法官怎么判？

2025年10月16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。