The Home Office faces a new Windrush scandal after the High Court ruled it had illegally denied proof of status to migrants lawfully working in the UK.
In a landmark ruling, the High Court said James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, had acted unlawfully by failing to provide documents to thousands of migrants with lawful immigration status.
Echoing the problems faced by the Windrush generation who came to the UK in the 1940s and 1950s, they had been given no proof of their status, which meant they were illegally barred from working, denied jobs, struggled to get into university and had problems renting accommodation.
The court ruled that a “substantial number” had suffered “real hardship” through being unable to provide immediate documentary proof of their immigration status and rights.
“Where these problems bite, the consequences are very severe indeed,” said the judge, Mr Justice Cavanagh.
It mirrors the Windrush scandal where the Government failed to keep records of those granted permission to stay and had not issued the paperwork they needed to confirm their status. It meant they were prevented from accessing healthcare, work and housing and, in some cases, deported.
The latest case was brought by Cecilia Adjei, who came to Britain from her native Ghana in 2000 and is the mother of two boys, aged 17 and 11, both of whom were born in the UK. She was supported by the charity Ramfel.
Her action was taken on behalf of an estimated 40,000 lawful migrants facing similar problems. They hold what is known as 3C leave, which extends their right to stay in the UK in order to preserve their lawful status and entitlements until they get a decision on their new application from the Home Office.
Her eldest son already has British citizenship but, in 2016, she and her younger son were granted limited leave to remain on a 10-year route to settlement and the chance to stay in Britain for the rest of their lives.
This meant she had to renew her limited leave every 30 months. As long as she met the application deadline - which she did - she could continue to live and work lawfully in the UK until she completed her 10-year route. However, the Home Office gave her no documents to prove this.
The failure of the Home Office to provide Ms Adjei, a single mother, with proof of her lawful status meant she was suspended from her job as a healthcare worker without any notice, during which time she struggled to feed and clothe her children.
“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,” she said
“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. I am very happy that the court has made this ruling.
“It means that people like me who have to apply to extend their visas over and over, and who often have to wait a long time for an answer, will now be able to prove that we have the rights we say we have.”
The court ruled it was a case where the Home Secretary could have taken a “straightforward step” by providing documentation to avoid hardship for a substantial number of people “with no negative consequences for the Home Office or for the immigration regime.”
The ruling means the Home Secretary is now compelled to “provide all those on Section 3C leave with a means of proving their status.”
The judge said: “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.”
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. The government knew this, and in the court’s view could easily fix it. That they refused to do so demonstrates that not only have they learned nothing from Windrush but have prioritised appearing tough over managing a fair and functional immigration system.”
