MH Barristers Secures Landmark Judicial Review Permission Against Home Office for ETS Victim

14 April 2026  •  Case Ref: JR-2025-LON-002848  •  Upper Tribunal, Field House

In a significant development for ETS victims who left the United Kingdom, the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber at Field House has granted permission for judicial review in a landmark case with potentially far-reaching implications for all out-of-country appellants.

This case raises a fundamental question: what must the Home Office do after an out-of-country appeal is allowed — particularly where a person’s leave was unlawfully cancelled many years ago? The case concerns a claimant whose student visa was cancelled on allegations of deception relating to an ETS English language test certificate. He was denied in-country rights of appeal and ultimately left the UK in 2016.

Following his departure, he appealed from Bangladesh through his barrister, Mohammed Monwar Hossain (M M Hossain) of MH Barristers, London. The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal allowed that appeal in 2018, with a clear finding that no deception had occurred — establishing that his student visa was cancelled unlawfully by the Home Office.

Years of Administrative Inaction

Despite winning his appeal, the claimant spent years without a meaningful remedy. He was repeatedly misdirected, pushed into ineffective application routes, and left in limbo. When a Judicial Review application was lodged, the Home Office offered to settle — acknowledging it had given him wrong advice about his return to the UK — but still directed him to make an entry clearance application through an appropriate route.

The claimant refused to accept the settlement offer. The Upper Tribunal initially refused permission on the papers, but upon renewal for an oral hearing, the matter was listed before Judge Hirst on 14 April 2026.

The Tribunal’s Decision

After hearing both parties, the Upper Tribunal (Judge Hirst) recognised that this is not a routine matter. The Court made clear that existing Home Office policies on implementing appeals do not adequately address the situation, and that there is an important legal issue requiring determination. Permission for Judicial Review was granted on fairness grounds.

Counsel’s Legal Arguments

Barrister Mohammed Monwar Hossain advanced a compelling argument grounded in fairness, public law duty, and the rule of law:

• An allowed appeal must have real effect — not be rendered meaningless by administrative inaction.
• The State cannot mislead an individual and then rely on that confusion to deny a remedy.
• Where injustice has occurred, the system must restore the individual to the position they should have been in.

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s attempt to rely on policy and alternative routes that fail to resolve the core injustice. Counsel also adduced evidence of another client in an exactly similar situation who was recently granted a visa to return to the UK after nine years, and thereafter granted settlement — highlighting what he described as a discriminatory and unfair application of the Home Office’s appeal implementation policy.

Wider Implications

This result is a testament to the tenacity and expertise of MH Barristers in pursuing justice for immigration clients who have been failed by the system. Having already secured a landmark appeal win for this client in 2018, Barrister Mohammed Monwar Hossain has now succeeded in bringing the matter back before the Upper Tribunal — ensuring that the Home Office cannot simply ignore a Tribunal’s findings. MH Barristers continues to be at the forefront of complex immigration litigation, including ETS cases, out-of-country appeals, and judicial review proceedings. If you or someone you know has been affected by an unlawful visa cancellation or an unimplemented appeal decision, contact MH Barristers today for expert legal advice.