Pakistani student encounters problems at the border

We recently told you about the case of Ms Ancy Andrews (“Care worker detained and removed for illegal working”, 28 February) and also about the case of Ms Keren Thadeu (“Brazilian visitor detained but ultimately victorious”, 14 April). 

As the titles suggest, in the first case the migrant was unsuccessful and in the second case successful. So in footballing terms it is 1-all Migrants v Home Office. 

We thought we needed a decider, which has now come in the form of a new case before the Court of Appeal case called “Tazeem”. 

Mr Tazeem, a national of Pakistan, had been granted a student visa to study business studies at De Montfort University in Leicester. He duly arrived at Heathrow Airport on 9 September 2022. As many of us will know, sometimes a migrant who arrives at the border and even with a perfectly nice-looking visa may get asked searching questions by the Border Force immigration officer. 

In this case the immigration officer thought that Mr Tazeem’s English was not very good and this evidently aroused suspicion. As many of us also know, a student visa holder must have satisfied an English language requirement. He was detained overnight and a decision was made to remove him from the UK, on the basis of these suspicions. The Border Force officers averred that his English qualifications from Pakistan were fake (or similar words). 

He instructed solicitors, who very quickly applied to the High Court for judicial review, as a result of which he was released from detention and the removal decision cancelled. He had been detained in total for about 17 hours. 

Mr Kazeem was in due course at least partially successful before the High Court. The court held that the Home Office’s decision had not been made with the proper procedure. He had not had the issues about the alleged fake documents put to him sufficiently clearly and thus he had not been given a proper opportunity to make representations about the allegations. This rendered the decision unlawful – and this rather reminds us of Ms Thadeu’s case.

His lawyers had also argued that his detention had been unlawful but this argument was not entertained by the court, which said that it had been lawful. 

Mr Kazeen was presumably happy about the Home Office’s decision having been found unlawful but was evidently not completely happy about the other part of the High Court’s decision about detention, and he challenged that part of the High Court’s decision at the Court of Appeal. 

There are, it must be said, a few funny facts about this case. Mr Kazeem had requested an Urdu interpreter for some of the interviews with the Border Force and at some point he allegedly stated to the Border Force officers that he did not speak English. 

This matter is curious, and what is also curious is that the Home Office did not challenge the High Court’s decision that its decision had been unlawful – ie they did not cross-appeal at the Court of Appeal. They could have done, but perhaps they forgot or perhaps they were too busy. 

This matter was somewhat sharpened in the Court of Appeal judgement, in which the leading judge (Lord Justice Males) rather suggested that the Home Office had had some right on its side. But as he put it: “However, in the absence of a cross-appeal, we must proceed on the basis that the decision to cancel the appellant’s leave was unlawful.” To put it another way, the courts have to follow the procedures that are laid down for them.

So because of this the only issue before the court was whether the detention had been unlawful.

In short, the court stated that the initial detention was lawful but that it became unlawful at the point where his leave to enter was cancelled – which was found to be an unlawful decision, so there does seem to be some sort of logic here. Mr Kazeem was deemed to have been unlawfully detained for 11 or 12 hours. The court awarded him £4,500 damages for the unlawful detention, which we calculate is about £390 per hour. 

As we pointed out with Ms Thadeu’s case, sometimes the Home Office messes up. As we also pointed out, it is often important how a decision is made, not just what the decision is or whether it is “right”. 

At any rate, the score is now 2-1 Migrants v Home Office. 

Oliver Westmoreland

Senior Immigration Lawyer