博客

租客签了一份文件，竟让房东无法随意赶人？

2025年8月27日

阅读更多 »

man holding phone in hand

AI杀人？16岁少年“被鼓励”走绝路，父母激愤控告OpenAI

2025年8月27日

阅读更多 »

graphic of small plane flying over wooden background with british flag and the word visa

配偶，工签人口大降，永居申请逆势上扬！内政部启用“AI”抓人！

2025年8月26日

阅读更多 »

怕女儿被骗，家族禁其继承百万镑资产！女子愤怒敲窗敲门骚扰母亲…

2025年8月26日

阅读更多 »

Young couple at notary public office

同意“净身出户”，却分得2.3亿镑！法院为何推翻婚姻协议？

2025年8月25日

阅读更多 »

Young couple at notary public office

同意“净身出户”，却分得2.3亿镑！法院为何推翻婚姻协议？

2025年8月25日

阅读更多 »

Selection of tools in the shape of a house

疯了！男子在屋顶装火车喇叭，天天鸣笛把邻居逼到精神崩溃！

2025年8月24日

阅读更多 »

当超市成了江湖：英国“零元购”还有解吗？

2025年8月23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.

英通胀升至3.8%！财相欲征收新“房产税”，谁遭殃？

2025年8月22日

阅读更多 »

惊！一家中餐厅用街头鸽子冒充北京烤鸭，警方当场查封

2025年8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

3 8 月, 2026

1.5万镑罚款作废！非法打工罚单有误，英最高法院打脸移民局

3 8 月, 2026

突发! 您的律所被SRA关闭了，您的权益如何保障？

2 8 月, 2026

逆转！离婚仅分27万镑;；3年后从前夫手中赢回660万镑！

31 7 月, 2026

英利率3.75%或再加息；中央重磅税收下放！京东超1亿镑布局伦敦

June 2024

欢迎咨询我们，并了解我们如何提供帮助。