AC-2025-LON-000997 - [2025] EWHC 1970 (Admin)

On 25 January 2024, the family applied for clearance to enter the UK, relying upon Article 8 ECHR. The application was made using the form for the Ukraine Resettlement Scheme. This was not because the claimants were seeking to pass themselves off as Ukrainians. It was because there was no form applicable to their circumstances and the Home Office guidance document Leave outside the Immigration Rules (version 3, 29 August 2023) tells applicants to “apply on the application form for the route which most closely matches their circumstances”.

Normally, applicants for entry clearance must attend a VAC to submit their biometric information. The claimants could not do so, because there is no VAC in Gaza. They therefore applied to provide their biometric information later. On 26 April 2024, the Home Secretary agreed to consider their application without biometric information in the first instance.

On 30 May 2024, the Home Secretary refused the family’s applications for leave to enter. They appealed to the FTT on the basis that the decisions were incompatible with their and BSJ’s Article 8 rights. On 19 September 2024, the FTT dismissed the appeals, accepting that BSJ and the claimants had a “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 and that the refusal of entry clearance amounted to an interference with their right to respect for that family life, but holding that the interference was proportionate.

The claimants appealed to the UT. On 19 December 2024, it upheld the FTT’s finding that a protected “family life” existed between the claimants and BSJ, but went on to conclude that the FTT had made five errors of law in its proportionality assessment. It followed that the UT had to re-make the decision. On 13 January 2025, it allowed the claimants’ appeal, concluding that the Home Secretary’s refusal of the claimants’ human rights claims amounted to a disproportionate interference with their and BSJ’s Article 8 rights in the light of the family’s “very compelling or exceptional circumstances”: see [140] and [182] of the UT’s decision. The UT found that BSJ intended and had the means to accommodate and support the family in the UK.

On 23 January 2025, the Home Secretary confirmed that she would not seek to appeal. On 30 January 2025, she sent formal confirmation to the claimants’ legal representatives that she was minded to grant the claimants entry clearance, subject to them attending a VAC to enrol their biometric information and satisfying security checks.

The UT’s decision was raised by the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons on 12 February 2025. She described the decision as “completely wrong”, drawing attention to the fact that they had applied using the form designed for the Ukrainian resettlement scheme. The Prime Minister agreed, saying:

“Let me be clear, it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration, it should be the government that makes the policy… and the Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.”

On 5 March 2025, the Home Secretary applied to the UT for permission to appeal out of time. The application was made without prejudice to the grant of entry clearance to the claimants, i.e. on the express basis that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, the claimants’ conditional leave to enter would be honoured. The UT refused permission to appeal. On 8 May 2025, permission to appeal was granted by Dingemans LJ. The appeal will consider, among other things, the circumstances in which the concept of “family life” in Article 8 extends beyond the core family. It is listed in January 2026.