TH is a descendant of Windrush generation parents, who arrived in the UK as a child and lawfully resided in the country for over 50 years. His case was recently featured in Amelia Gentleman’s article in The Guardian.

Brenda was instructed to assist TH in pursuing a judicial review of an unlawful deportation order and the resulting Windrush Scheme ineligibility decision. The pre-action correspondence (PAP Letter) noted the catch-22 inherent in the above decisions. Despite being a victim of the Home Office scandal, which resulted in deportation being pursued in the first place, TH was informed that his immigration status could not be regularised under the Windrush Scheme, due to his pending deportation order.

Brenda challenged the validity of the deportation order, arguing that it effectively disregarded s.7(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971. She demonstrated that the 2009 order was unlawful, as it was issued under s.3(5) of the 1971 Act, despite TH’s status as a Commonwealth citizen, ordinarily resident in the UK for more than five years. The PAP letter also put forward that the Windrush Scheme decision: 1) demonstrated the SSHD’ failure in her Tameside duty and a fettering of her discretion regarding righting a historical injustice; 2) was contrary to the Padfield principle, as it frustrated the very purpose of the Windrush Scheme.

Following pre-action correspondence, TH’s deportation order, which remained outstanding since 2009, was revoked and he was granted 30 months limited leave to remain. This new development was also reported on in a follow up article.

In her PAP Reply, the SSHD subsequently confirmed that she would also reconsider TH’s eligibility under the Windrush Scheme, in view of the revocation decision.

TH continues to pursue the confirmation of his immigration status.

Brenda was instructed by Naga Kandiah and Ane Soghomonyan of MTC Solicitors.