英国商业

小费新规实施第一案？没有公平发放小费，The Ivy被起诉！

2025年9月2日

阅读更多 »

1.7亿英镑蒸发！奢华门店背后比钻石更耀眼的骗局

2025年9月1日

阅读更多 »

row of expensive houses

英财相又作妖？恐对房东加税填财政黑洞！租房市场震荡…

2025年8月28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 »

英打破经济衰退！税局严查：首用“未能防止逃税”罪名起诉

2025年8月15日

阅读更多 »

运营私人有限公司学到的5件事！避开这些“踩坑瞬间”

2025年8月11日

阅读更多 »

Tower bridge

英降息至两年来最低加税难逃？房东“催租驱赶”被禁3年！

2025年8月8日

阅读更多 »

Creative concept for car rental

英最高院撕开“车贷隐性佣金”遮羞布！180亿镑赔偿怎么拿？

2025年8月4日

阅读更多 »

商家注意：虚假评论将被警告！破产后违规经商，一男子被判5年！

2025年8月1日

阅读更多 »

Notting Hill

商标不用就过期？他人“侵权”英国法院也不管！

2025年7月28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。