[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)

The Respondent invited the Applicant to make submissions on extending his leave to remain under the ACRS. At the time, he was in the UK. On 10^th February 2022, the Applicant did so, and he attended a meeting with the Respondent on 17^th February 2022. On 4^th March 2022, the Respondent asked the Applicant to provide his biometric details.

On 14^th June 2022, the Respondent reached a decision to void the Applicant’s case, stating at B/[545] that:

“As a Nepalese national you were evacuated from Afghanistan as a gesture of

goodwill by the UK Government. This came with the understanding that once in the UK you would arrange and be offered support for onward travel to the country of your nationality. You are not eligible for relocation under this scheme as you do not meet the criteria set out in the Rules. You therefore do not hold current leave and should seek advice on alternative options or make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.”

The Applicant says that in the period between March and July 2022, he learned that five other evacuees in comparable circumstances had been granted ILR. In light of apparently unspecified assurances that he could remain in the UK, and the grant to others, he believed that the decision must have been made in error. He did not state this in his email response to the Respondent dated 15^th June 2022. Instead, he stated that he could not go back to Nepal at the moment and was now working in the UK. He asked what alternative options there were for staying in the UK (B/[545]). He did not leave the UK, and continued to work until he was encountered on 27^th March 2023 and was detained under immigration powers, purportedly for overstaying his visa. The Applicant claims that his employer had conducted a ‘right to work’ check in November 2022, which confirmed that he had a right to work. We make no finding on whether he did or did not overstay his visa.

The Applicant was released from immigration detention on 9^th May 2023, (B/[547]) during which time the Applicant was initially treated as having claimed asylum, but later confirmed that he was not. Following pre-action correspondence which had secured his release from detention, at the request of the Respondent, on 25^th May 2023, the Applicant’s representatives made further submissions (B/[240]).