70-Year-Old Overstayer WINS Against Home Office – Judge SLAMS “No Choice” Bail Policy!

A Review of R (Ho) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2641 (Admin)

The Claimant, a 70-year-old Malaysian national, entered the UK in 1999 on a 6-month tourist visa, overstayed, and lived in Southend, Essex for nearly 20 years, building a support network. On 22 August 2024, he was arrested and detained at Tinsley House IRC pending removal. On 26 September 2024, he applied for leave to remain under the 20-year private life route. Granted immigration bail on 11 October 2024, his solicitors requested accommodation in or near Southend due to his community ties and Article 8 ECHR rights. The Home Secretary refused on 23 October 2024 and 12 June 2025, citing a "no choice basis" allocation and lack of exceptional or compelling circumstances.

Issues

The Claimant challenged the refusals on four grounds: (1) misdirection on law and policy under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; (2) failure to consider circumstances, inadequate reasons, or irrationality in location decisions; (3) breach of Human Rights Act 1998 via Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) violations; (4) failure to comply with Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 regarding disability. Key factors included the Claimant's long residence, age, limited English, isolation risks, and relocation disruption. The core dispute was whether the Schedule 10 Policy Guidance required assessing suitability based on vulnerabilities before allocation, or if the "no choice" policy from the Asylum Accommodation Policy applied equivalently.

Laws:

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 

Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part I, Article 8 

Decision

Her Honour Judge Belcher quashed the Home Secretary's decisions on Grounds 1 and 2, remitting the matter for reconsideration. Grounds 3 and 4 were not determined.

The Court held that the Home Secretary misapplied policy by using the Asylum Accommodation Policy's "no choice" basis and exceptional circumstances test, which applies to asylum seekers, not Schedule 10 immigration bail. The Schedule 10 Policy Guidance requires assessing suitability before allocation, including whether the individual has accommodation-related needs based on disability, medical needs, or vulnerabilities, with allocation varying by individual needs. Location informs suitability under Schedule 10, unlike the Asylum policy where all accommodation is deemed suitable unless exceptional circumstances justify deviation. The Home Secretary erred by referencing vulnerabilities only for the exceptional test, not suitability, making the decisions unlawful. Ground 2 succeeded consequently due to failure to properly consider circumstances.

Citation: R (Ho) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2641 (Admin)

The full decision can be accessed here 

 

                                                                                                                  



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nebraska Court Mandates USCIS Approve Journalist’s EB-1A After Calling Agency's Process Arbitrary and Unlawful

Image
The case, Mukherji v. Miller , No. 4:24-CV-3170 (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026), involves plaintiff Anahita Mukherji, an Indian national and journalist, who filed a Form I-140 immigrant petition for alien worker seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under the EB-1A category pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). Mukherji submitted her petition on March 8, 2024, self-petitioning based on her accomplishments in journalism. To qualify for EB-1A, a petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) require evidence of either a one-time major international award or at least three of ten specified criteria, such as published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, judging the work of others, and high salary...
Read more

UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)’s Decision in the matter of Da Silva Pinho

Image
Facts: Hamilton Jorge Da Silva Pinho, a Portuguese national born on February 15, 1988, entered the UK in August 2009 at age 21 with his parents. He was granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (“EUSS”) on November 19, 2019, which expired on November 20, 2024. On October 20, 2021, he applied for settled status under the EUSS. His criminal record includes: a 2011 caution for threatening behavior; a 2013 caution for theft; a 2015 conviction for battery (community order and restraining order); a 2017 conviction for property destruction (conditional discharge); and a 2023 conviction for three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (20 months' imprisonment, restraining order until 2028). On November 15, 2023, the Secretary of State issued a Stage 1 Deportation Decision Notice. On January 16, 2024, a deportation decision was issued, refusing his human rights claim (with appeal rights under s82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“NIAA 2002”) ...
Read more

Impact of "voluntary re-availment" UK & EU immigration laws

Image
In UK immigration / asylum law, “voluntary re ‑ availment” refers to a situation where a recognised refugee (or someone claiming refugee protection) has chosen to place themself back under the protection of their country of nationality (or former habitual residence). Paragraph 339A of the Immigration Rules (which implements Article 1C of the Refugee Convention) sets out the grounds on which refugee status ceases, states as follows: 339A. A person shall cease to be a refugee if: (i) he has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of nationality; or (ii) having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or (iii) he has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or (iv) he has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or (v) he can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recog...
Read more