The Home Secretary unlawfully failed to provide proof of status to thousands of people with extended leave to remain, causing hardship, the High Court has held in a landmark judgment
R (on the application of Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin) concerned people on ‘3C’ leave—who have previously been granted leave to remain for a fixed period, have applied for an extension before the expiry of that period, but have not had their application determined before the period expired. Under s 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, leave to remain is extended on the same terms as before, pending the results of their application.
However, the Home Office did not provide an eVisa or other digital proof of this status, which led to people losing job offers, employment, rental accommodation and access to higher education.
The case echoes the problems encountered by people from the Windrush generation.
Delivering his judgment, Mr Justice Cavanagh said: ‘This matters, in particular, because there are a number of statutory provisions in the immigration field which form part of what was originally known as the “hostile environment” regime, and which is now referred to by the government as the “compliant environment” regime.
‘This is a term used to describe the combination of laws and processes that regulate access to work, benefits, and services in the UK.’
Cavanagh J held, additionally, the Home Secretary breached his duties under s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 by failing to consider the impact on children affected by this policy.
Janet Farrell, partner at Bhatt Murphy, representing the claimants, said: ‘The Home Office left them vulnerable to the vagaries of the hostile environment, a system which, by design, is intended to make life as difficult as possible for those without proof of lawful status.’
