UK Immigration Appeals Questioned Over Potential Legal Blunder

Thousands of migrants may have unlawfully gained the right to remain in Britain due to a legal misstep by the courts, according to a judge's concerns.

A ruling has indicated that immigration appeals heard in the UK for over a decade might have been illegitimate because courts were, in fact, stripped of jurisdiction for certain types of cases in 2014.

This legal blunder means that potentially thousands of immigration appeals have proceeded without a legal basis, which could have resulted in numerous migrants being granted permission to enter or stay in the UK. A Daily Mail analysis identified 3,500 such cases heard in the upper immigration tribunal since 2014. The actual number is likely higher, as decisions from lower immigration courts are not publicly recorded.

The issue came to light during a case involving Hinda Hassan Wasuge, a Somali national seeking to join her British husband. Her application had been rejected by a British 'entry clearance officer.' First-tier immigration tribunal judge Daniel Wright, ruling on Ms. Wasuge's appeal, stated that the court's jurisdiction had been altered by the Immigration Act 2014. He determined that a decision made by an entry clearance officer did not constitute a 'decision of the Secretary of State,' and therefore, such decisions did not attract a right of appeal. "I find that an entry clearance officer is not legally equivalent to the Secretary of State," Judge Wright wrote. "As a result, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the present appeal."

Despite the appeal being dismissed on factual grounds anyway, Judge Wright noted he could not find any previous case where the jurisdictional issue had been raised. This suggests that for the past 12 years, immigration courts may not have had the authority to hear these specific types of appeals.

Cases identified by the Daily Mail include that of Isra Ali Abdallah Ibrahim, a Sudanese national initially refused permission to join her refugee husband, who won her appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Pakistani national Javed Iqbal, who had overstayed a student visa for nine years, also won an appeal against a visa refusal to live with his British wife. Three Ethiopians successfully challenged a decision to refuse their application to join their half-brother, a British citizen. Uzbek national Anvar Amindjanovich Navruzov won an appeal for a family permit based on his ex-wife's settled status. A 70-year-old Vietnamese national, Tuoi Thi Tran, whose serious health conditions made her unable to care for herself, was granted a re-hearing. Additionally, a family of eight Afghans won a new hearing after appealing a refusal based on danger from the Taliban.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called the development "deeply alarming," suggesting that beyond the 3,500 cases in the Upper Tribunal, tens of thousands more in the First Tier Tribunal might have allowed immigrants to join family members without jurisdiction. "No wonder our borders are so open," Philp stated, advocating for a complete dismantling of the immigration legal system and a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that Parliament should determine who enters the UK, not judges.

The Home Office, however, sought to minimize the ruling's impact. "This is a First-tier Tribunal decision, which does not set a precedent or change the law," a spokesperson said. "It also has no wider impact on the way the immigration system operates."