Cecilia Adjei, a Ghanaian mother of two, has achieved a notable legal triumph against the UK Home Office concerning her immigration status. The ruling by the High Court sheds light on the Home Office’s failure to furnish essential documentation to numerous migrants, jeopardizing their legal standing and means of livelihood.
Adjei, who migrated to the UK in 2000 and works as a healthcare support worker, collaborated with the charity organization Ramfel to take legal action against the Home Office. The case centered on the Home Office’s neglect in issuing ‘3C leave’ documentation, which grants temporary legal status while visa extension applications are being processed. This oversight left many migrants, including Adjei, susceptible to job loss and unable to access crucial services like healthcare and housing.
Justice Cavanagh, presiding over the case, deemed the Home Office’s actions unlawful. He underscored the significant adversity faced by individuals on 3C leave due to the lack of immediate documentary evidence of their immigration status. The judge emphasized the necessity for a welcoming environment for those lawfully present in the UK, contrasting it with the hostile treatment reserved for undocumented individuals.
Adjei welcomed the court’s decision, recounting the hardships she endured throughout the ordeal. Suspended from her job twice due to the inability to prove her legal right to work, she faced severe financial strain. Adjei expressed gratitude for the ruling, highlighting the relief it brings to those affected.
The ruling has evoked parallels with the Windrush scandal, where numerous long-term UK residents from the Caribbean faced wrongful detention, denial of legal rights, and threats of deportation due to documentation deficiencies.
Nick Beales, head of campaigning at Ramfel, criticized the government’s persistent failures despite assurances of learning from past errors. Janet Farrell, a partner at Bhatt Murphy solicitors representing the claimants, hailed the ruling as a significant triumph for those impacted by the Home Office’s oversight.
A Home Office spokesperson stated that they are carefully considering the judgment and refrained from further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.