UK Immigration Appeals Questioned Over Potential Decade-Old Legal Blunder
Thousands of migrants may have had their right to remain in Britain granted on an illegitimate legal basis, a judge has warned.
A legal blunder dating back over a decade may have allowed thousands of migrants to gain the right to remain in Britain, a judge has warned. The issue centers on a specific type of immigration appeal that courts may have lacked the jurisdiction to hear since 2014.
Immigration judge Daniel Wright raised concerns that numerous cases have proceeded despite changes in the law that may have stripped the courts of the authority to consider them. The Immigration Act 2014 stipulated how individuals could appeal immigration decisions, but Wright ruled that decisions made by an "entry clearance officer" do not legally equate to a "decision of the Secretary of State," thereby potentially not attracting a right of appeal.
"I find that an entry clearance officer is not legally equivalent to the Secretary of State," Wright stated in a ruling. "As a result, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the present appeal."
This finding suggests that for the past 12 years, immigration courts may have been hearing appeals without the necessary legal standing. A Daily Mail analysis identified 3,487 cases in the upper immigration tribunal since 2014 where an entry clearance officer was named. The actual number is likely higher, as many cases heard in lower, less publicly documented immigration courts are not accounted for.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp described the development as "deeply alarming." He suggested that beyond the thousands of cases in the upper tribunal, tens of thousands more could exist in lower courts where judges may have overruled the Home Office without proper jurisdiction. Philp stated that the current immigration legal system needs "total dismantling" and reiterated the Conservative party's plan to abolish immigration tribunals and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that Parliament and democratically elected ministers should determine who enters the UK, not unelected judges.
The Home Office, however, downplayed the ruling's significance. A spokesperson stated, "This is a First-tier Tribunal decision, which does not set a precedent or change the law. It also has no wider impact on the way the immigration system operates."
Among the cases highlighted where appeals were heard were those of a Sudanese national initially refused permission to join her refugee husband, a Pakistani national who had overstayed a student visa, three Ethiopians seeking to join a half-brother granted asylum, an Uzbek national appealing a refusal for a family permit based on his ex-wife's settled status, a Vietnamese national appealing the refusal of her application to join her daughter due to health conditions, and a family of eight Afghans appealing entry refusal on grounds of danger from the Taliban. In several of these instances, the tribunal ordered cases to be re-heard or granted the right to appeal.