‘Legal blunder’ dating back over a decade may have helped thousands of illegal migrants stay in Britain, judge warns

THOUSANDS of migrants may have been unlawfully granted entry to the UK following a decade-long “legal blunder”, a judge has warned. The senior judge warned that vast numbers of tribunal rulings dating back to 2014 may be entirely illegitimate. Thousands of migrants may have been able to stay in the UK after a ‘legal blunder’ Credit: Alamy Stock Photo The legal blunder was highlighted in an immigration tribunal ruling Credit: Alamy Despite Parliament stripping the judiciary of its authority to hear a specific class of entry appeals 12 years ago, courts continued to process “numerous” cases without any legal foundation. The oversight means hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals may have secured permission to settle in the country through invalid judicial decisions. Sign up for The Sun newsletter Thank you! An analysis by the Daily Mail reveals that at least 3,500 such appeals have passed through the upper immigration tribunal alone. The true scale of the error is expected to be significantly larger repors the outlet. Countless additional cases have been heard in lower immigration courts where rulings remain undisclosed to the public. The systemic flaw emerged during a challenge brought by Hinda Hassan Wasuge, a Somali national seeking to join her British husband in the UK, reports the MailOnline. Her initial application had been rejected by an official British “entry clearance officer” responsible for determining visa eligibility. Presiding over Wasuge’s subsequent appeal, First-tier tribunal judge Daniel Wright highlighted that the court’s jurisdiction had been fundamentally altered by the Immigration Act 2014. Most read in The Sun Under that statute, rights of appeal were restricted solely to instances where “a person may appeal to the tribunal where the Secretary of State has made an immigration decision in relation to that person”. Judge Wright ruled that determinations made by entry clearance officers do not equate to a decision by the Home Secretary, effectively extinguishing any statutory right to appeal. “I find that an entry clearance officer is not legally equivalent to the Secretary of State,” Judge Wright stated. “As a result, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the present appeal. “Therefore, I would have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, even if [I] had not already decided that the appeal should be dismissed on the facts of the case in any event.” While legal representatives for Ms Wasuge pointed to “numerous cases” where similar appeals had been permitted, the judge noted he was “unable to find … any case where the question of jurisdiction to hear the appeal was raised”. Though rooted in a statutory distinction, the fallout threatens major ramifications for the border system. Analysis indicates that for 12 years, tribunals routinely acted outside their legal remit, with 3,487 upper tribunal cases specifically identifying entry clearance officers as parties to the proceedings, reports the Daily Mail. The Home Office said: “This is a First-tier Tribunal decision, which does not set a precedent or change the law. “It also has no wider impact on the way the immigration system operate.” It comes after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood rolled out a pilot scheme offering failed asylum seekers and their families up to £40,000 to leave. The one-time offer is valid for one week only. Those accepting will also be given flights home. The cash is expected to be issued on pre-paid debit cards once they have left the country. Home Office sources say assisted voluntary returns cost less than the £48,000 for a forced removal, and do not require border agents to accompany a migrant all the way home. Ministers claim the payouts save taxpayers money as, for example, housing a migrant family of three in asylum accommodation costs about £158,000 a year. The top £3,000 assisted voluntary return payment would fund three months for one migrant in a typical house of multiple occupation (HMO).