Table Of Contents
On the lines of the “Windrush scandal”, the Home Office’s failure to provide digital documents to thousands of migrants who had applied for extension of their visas was termed an unlawful act by the High Court in its judgment. This was the verdict delivered by the High Court on 7 June 2024 in R (on the application of Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London and Cecilia Adjei) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2024] EWHC 1374(Admin).
This was in connection with a case in which a Cecilia Adjei, a healthcare worker and mother of two children who came to the UK from Ghana in 2000, had to face hardship because when she applied for visa extension, digital documents were not issued to her by the home office.
An immigrant cannot prove his lawful residence in the UK due to lack of documents and during this period he can also be detained due to the government’s ‘hostile environment’ policy which acts as a deterrent and prevent immigration offending, acting as a deterrent for those considering coming to, or remaining in, the UK unlawfully.
The ‘hostile environment’ can be enforced when an immigrant cannot prove his immigration status in the UK. But those who have applied for visa extension automatically enjoy the provision of “3C leave”. Section 3c of Immigration Act 1971 protects the rights of immigrants who have submitted a valid application for a visa extension. 3c gives leave gives such migrants the same immigration status (lawful residence in the UK) they had before applying for their extension and also give them the same rights which they earlier had.
3C leave remain active until the decision on visa extension by the Home Office is received and even after that, until the decision on appeal or judicial review is stated, where the migrant is allowed to and goes for appeal or judicial review.
Windrush Scandal
Windrush scandal was a political scandal which started in 2018 and due to which many people were wrongly detained, their legal rights were taken away, they were threatened with deportation and in many cases, many people were even deported from the UK by the Home Office. Many people were detained, some were deported, people lost their jobs, their passports were confiscated and they were also deprived of benefits and medical care.
Many of the people affected by the Windrush were born British subjects and came to the UK before 1973, particularly from Caribbean countries as members of a Windrush generation.
The Challenge
The charity Ramfel, along with Cecilia Adjei, applied for a judicial review against this decision of the Home Office. During the judicial review, the charity Ramfel told the court that thousands of immigrants are facing a lot of hardships due to the Home Office not issuing documents to them. If the home office does not provide documents to visa extension applicants, If the home office does not provide documents to visa extension applicants, then the current immigration status of such migrants is considered terminated and they are treated like illegal immigrants in the UK.
They do not get job offers, face current job suspension, no facility of NHS, no access to higher education and rental accommodation as they are considered illegal immigrants in absence of any legal immigration status.
The High Court’s Stance
The court accepted the evidence presented by Ms Adjei, RAMFEL and others and stated that
“the evidence clearly establishes that a substantial number of those on section 3C leave suffer real hardship through being unable to provide immediate documentary proof of their immigration status and attendant rights”.
The court ruled that the secretary of state for home department (SSHD) has the discretion to administer immigration matters but not providing digital documents to migrants on their part was irrational and hence was also unlawful, which frustrates the purpose of 3C leave and also affects the objective of hostile environment.
The court further held that not providing 3C leave documents by SSHD was a breach of duty due to which it failed to safeguard the welfare and best interest of children who were adversely impacted due to 3C leave. The high court said
“The underlying purpose of the legislative framework is that there should be a hostile and unwelcoming environment for those who are unlawfully present and so who are undocumented. The corollary of this is that those who are lawfully here should not face the hostile environment. That can only happen if they are documented”.
Conclusion
In the end, the court considered that it should give relief to the claimants on this matter. Though, the Home Office is moving towards digitalization of documents of immigrants, its intention can change and it can also take time, so relief should be provided to these claimants.
Read Other Blogs:
UK Child Visa: How to Bring Your Children to the UK
The new guidelines on “Good Character” from 10 February 2025 for British Citizenship Application