英国商业

Chef in restaurant kitchen at stove with pan, cooking food

伦敦知名餐厅多次违反规则，营业执照再次面临吊销风险

2026年1月9日

阅读更多 »

商铺已经卖掉，却要替新老板还钱？在英国这是合法？

2026年1月8日

阅读更多 »

Typical 1970s style concrete brutalist council flats in south west London

房东变庇护酒店，20年的老餐厅被活活“熬”到关门

2026年1月7日

阅读更多 »

通知期写错，企业可能要多付好几个月？

2026年1月2日

阅读更多 »

Team of business people standing in the office and discussing something work related

里夫斯提前锁定春季声明！英国新“雇佣法”获御准

2025年12月24日

阅读更多 »

person working on laptop

商家警惕！女子曾白吃白住逃单800英镑，一年后竟再次行骗

2025年12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.

英终降息,3年来最低点！董事伪造账单，获刑15个月

2025年12月19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

公司董事挪用近19万镑买豪车，赌光设备款！判刑18个月

2025年12月18日

阅读更多 »

英国中餐外卖常见的“租台”模式，法律上是怎么回事？

2025年12月17日

阅读更多 »

street view of london with double decker bus

英10月经济萎缩0.1%，下周降息成定局？通胀能温柔落地？

2025年12月12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

21 6 月, 2026

离婚20年后前夫成亿万富翁，前妻回头索要千万英镑！

20 6 月, 2026

新规确定！房东们，您的出租房达到”体面住房标准”了吗？

19 6 月, 2026

英利率继续维持3.75%！脱欧10年，英经济蒸发6%

18 6 月, 2026

英国劳动法变天！工作满6个月，就能告雇主不公平解雇？

June 2024

欢迎咨询我们，并了解我们如何提供帮助。