The Home Office is facing a new Windrush-style scandal after a landmark high court ruling found that the home secretary acted unlawfully by failing to provide documents to thousands of migrants proving they are here legally.
The charity Ramfel brought the legal challenge along with Cecilia Adjei, a healthcare worker and mother of two boys aged 17 and 11, who came to Britain from Ghana in 2000.
The charity said hundreds of thousands of migrants were potentially affected by the Home Office’s failure to provide confirmation documents showing that people who apply to extend their visas are here legally while the applications are being processed. This is known as “3C leave”, an automatic form of immigration status while they wait for the Home Office to process their application.
Some have their jobs put at risk while others face difficulties accessing higher education, healthcare and the right to rent a home because they cannot prove they are here legally.
The case echoes the problems faced by the Windrush generation, who were unable to prove they were here legally and so struggled to work, rent and access benefits.
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Cavanagh, ruled on Friday: “The evidence clearly establishes that a substantial number of those on section 3C leave suffer real hardship through being unable to provide immediate documentary proof of their immigration status and attendant rights.”
He found that the failure to provide digital proof of status to those on 3C leave was unlawful. “The underlying purpose of the legislative framework is that there should be a hostile and unwelcoming environment for those who are unlawfully present and so who are undocumented. The corollary of this is that those who are lawfully here should not face the hostile environment. That can only happen if they are documented,” he said.
The judge urged the home secretary to take a “straightforward step” to avoid hardship for a substantial number of people.
Adjei welcomed the ruling. “What I went through while waiting for my visa to be extended by the Home Office was really stressful,” she said. “I was unable to prove that I had the right to work so was suspended from my employment as a healthcare support worker twice, without any notice.
“I have two children and have to budget very carefully, so we suffered real hardship when my wages suddenly stopped. I had to borrow money and visit a food bank just to get by. It was humiliating and scary as I didn’t have any way to prove to my employer that I still had the correct immigration status and the right to work.”
Nick Beales, the head of campaigning at Ramfel, said: “Time and again the government’s hostile environment traps and targets people with every right to be in the UK. They assured us they had learned from the Windrush scandal, but these words were clearly hollow. People on 3C leave have had their lives disrupted for years because they have been unable to prove their immigration status.”
Janet Farrell, a partner at Bhatt Murphy solicitors, which represented the claimants, said: “This is a significant victory for my clients and all those who through no fault of their own are left undocumented in an environment which demands proof of immigration status in order to access work, housing and healthcare or hold a driving licence or bank account.”
The Home Office has been approached for comment.
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism as we enter one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes in 2024.
With the potential of another Trump presidency looming, there are countless angles to cover around this year’s election – and we’ll be there to shed light on each new development, with explainers, key takeaways and analysis of what it means for America, democracy and the world.
From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality.
We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.
From threats to election integrity, to the spiraling climate crisis, to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualize, investigate and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news organization with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.