Recognition of Indefinite Leave to Remain for client after 15 years of Home Office denials

Turpin Miller acted for SG, a Jamaican national and victim of sexual abuse and modern slavery who has lived in the UK for over 30 years, in a successful judicial review against the Home Office and First-tier Tribunal, arising from a series of errors in the authorities’ handling of her case. The Upper Tribunal’s Judgment also makes a number of significant findings in respect of human rights claims made by people in prison.

The case is R (SG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department JR-2025-LON-000242.

Background

SG arrived in the UK with her mother in 1991, at the age of two. Her mother made applications to the Home Office for leave to remain, and later for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), with SG as her dependant. SG and her mother were granted indefinite leave to remain. A stamp was placed on SG’s mother’s passport documenting that leave.

However, as a result of Home Office errors, SG’s leave was seemingly not properly recorded on their internal systems and from 2010 onwards the Home Office claimed that SG did not have any leave to remain. At the same time, the Home Office had destroyed her mother’s physical file containing potentially vital evidence (in echoes of the Windrush scandal).

SG attempted to challenge this denial of her lawful status for many years and was met with repeated denials by the Home Office that she had ever been granted status. This issue came to a head many years later following the Home Office’s attempts to bring deportation proceedings.

In October 2023 SG was interviewed by immigration officers while in prison who asked her if there were any reasons why she should not be deported to Jamaica. SG replied that she did not wish to return because her family and children were in the UK, and she had lived in the UK since she was a young child.

Despite SG providing these answers, the Home Office proceeded to make a deportation decision against her in February 2024 which asserted that she had not provided any response, and so would not be given any right of appeal against the deportation decision.

Subsequently, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused to allow SG to submit an appeal against the Home Office’s deportation decision.

As a result of these decisions, SG faced losing her ILR, even if she were to later succeed in her challenge against deportation.

Judicial review

Having been instructed, Turpin Miller applied for judicial review on SG’s behalf to challenge the Home Office and FTT decisions. Following a rolled-up hearing in May 2025, the Upper Tribunal issued its judgment in June 2025. The Judge found in SG’s favour, holding that:

  1. SG was granted ILR in line with her mother in 1993, contrary to the Home Office’s assertions that  ‘administrative errors’ had led to SG never being granted leave.
     
  2. SG’s responses during the interview in prison amounted to a human rights claim against deportation.
     
  3. Consequently, the Home Office’s February 2024 deportation decision amounted to a refusal of SG’s human rights claim, and therefore generated a right of appeal to the FTT.
     
  4. The FTT was therefore wrong not to accept SG’s appeal.

As a result of these findings, SG was able to proceed with an in-time appeal against the Home Office’s deportation decision, allowing her to retain her ILR while the appeal is ongoing, and in the event that she succeeds in her challenge against deportation. This will enable SG access to much-needed employment opportunities supported accommodation to help with her recovery from her experiences.

The Judgment also addressed a number of important legal issues, including the legal effect of stamps in a person’s passport, and the procedural requirements for making private and family life claims under Article 8 ECHR while serving a custodial sentence.

The Home Office have confirmed that they will not be appeaing this decision.

SG is represented by William Shelley, Ben Goldberg and Mike Poulter of Turpin Miller’s Public Law Team, and by Isabelle Tod and Izzy Ellis of Turpin Miller’s Deportation Team.

For the Judicial Review, SG was represented by Ronan Toal of Garden Court Chambers and Mike Spencer, Simon Cox and Agata Patyna of Doughty Street Chambers.

Contact our experts for further advice