R (Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Subject Matter

IMMIGRATION — Limited leave to remain — Documentary proof — Secretary of State’s policy not to provide all persons having limited leave to remain with documentary proof of immigration status — Whether policy frustrating legislative purpose — Whether policy irrational — Immigration Act 1971 (c 77), s 3C

[2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin); [2024] 1 WLR 4950; [2024] 4 All ER 947; [2024] WLR(D) 267, KBD

IMMIGRATION — Limited leave to remain — Documentary proof — Secretary of State’s policy not to provide all persons having limited leave to remain with documentary proof of immigration status — Whether policy irrational — Immigration Act 1971 (c 77), s 3C

[2025] EWCA Civ 1843; [2025] WLR(D) 579, CA

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In the Court of Appeal, the Secretary of State for the Home Department appealed a High Court ruling that deemed her failure to provide digital documentation for migrants on section 3C leave unlawful. The court upheld the claimants' assertion of significant hardship, finding the omission irrational. The appeal was allowed, while a cross-appeal concerning the Padfield principle was dismissed. The court adjourned the section 55 ground for further submissions, concentrating on the implications of the Secretary of State's decision-making process.

Issues

• Did the Secretary of State for the Home Department act unlawfully by failing to provide digital documentation to migrants on section 3C leave, thereby causing them to suffer real hardship in demonstrating their immigration status?
• Was the Secretary of State's failure to provide immediate digital proof of status for those on section 3C leave considered Wednesbury unreasonable, given the substantial number of affected individuals and the absence of countervailing considerations?
• Did the Secretary of State breach her duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 by not considering the impact of her decision on the welfare of children in the context of the policy regarding section 3C leave?

Commentary

Free Movement
Section 3C leave challenge adjourned for further consideration of impact on children Case comment