Emma Stuart King gained a successful outcome in a claim for Judicial Review against a decision to refuse the client, ZR, entry clearance.

ZR had been granted leave to enter the UK as the spouse of a person with refugee status. Contrary to the Home Office policy at the time, she was granted only 4 years leave to enter, rather than indefinite leave in line with the status held by her husband.

Later, during a short holiday to her country of origin she fell ill and required surgery. Her leave to enter the UK lapsed before she was declared fit to fly to return to the UK. Her husband had in the intervening years naturalised as British, meaning that she could no longer benefit from the route of entry as the spouse of a refugee. She could not meet the financial and language requirements to return as a spouse. She made an application ‘outside of the rules’ to return to the UK under the returning residents rule.

Emma Stuart King was instructed in the Judicial Review of the decision to refuse the application. She argued that the ECO had erred in refusing to treat the application under the returning residents rule as a Human Rights claim. Further, that ZR was the victim ‘an historical injustice’ as defined in Patel (historic injustice; NIAA Part 5A) [2020] UKUT 00351 due to the failure to follow the policy under which she should have been granted ILR, and that this should determine how her art. 8 ECHR claim should be determined.

The claim for JR was settled following the lodging of the claim as the ECO reviewed the decision and granted ZR leave to return to the UK.

Emma was instructed by Ata & Co Solicitors.