Palestinian family succeed in their latest battle to reach the UK

A Palestinian family, including children aged nine and seven, have succeeded in a judicial review challenging the UK’s failure to provide them with consular assistance to get them out of Gaza so that they can register their biometrics and come to the UK to join family. The case is R (BEL & Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 1970 (Admin).

This is the same family whose immigration appeal has been misunderstood by both the press and politicians for several months now, after everyone seems to have made the mistake of failing to properly understand or interrogate assertions made by the leader of the opposition about the use of an application form which was in line with the Home Office’s own processes. With a simple “that is the process as insisted upon by the Home Office” from the Prime Minister, this family may already have made it to the UK instead of being turned into a political football, while they try to stay alive long enough to get here.

Background

In January 2025 the family succeeded in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the Home Secretary’s refusal to grant them leave outside the rules to come to the UK to join their British citizen relative. The Home Secretary said that the family would be granted leave to enter the UK, but that this was conditional on biometric checks. This meant that the claimants had to attend a Visa Application Centre and there is no such centre in Gaza.

It is not possible to travel to the centre in Jordan without the permission of the Israeli government which is only granted where requested by another country’s government. The process and its complexity is described by a witness for the Foreign Office at paragraphs 27 to 36 of the judgment. It appears from paragraph 37 that there are concerns within the Foreign Office at using “diplomatic capital” on these cases.

The Foreign Office refused to provide the family with consular assistance to exit Gaza and attend a Visa Application Centre on 5 February 2025 and 12 March 2025. Reasons included that, given the situation in Gaza and the number of people affected, the situation of this family was not sufficiently exceptional.

The judicial review

The judicial review was filed on 2 April 2025 and a rolled up hearing listed for 5 June 2025. The Foreign Secretary agreed to reconsider the decision on 30 May 2025 and refused the request again on 6 June 2025. The hearing then took place on 9 July, meaning that the family was left in danger for a further month as a result of the reconsideration.

The first ground for the judicial review was that the refusal was irrational, procedurally unfair and that the policy was not properly applied. The second ground was that the ongoing refusal to provide consular assistance was a breach of article 8 ECHR.

The policy referred to is the Extended Eligibility Criteria:

25. On 14 December 2023, following the outbreak of hostilities in Gaza, the Foreign Secretary adopted the Extended Eligibility Criteria (“EEC”), which provide that consular assistance in exiting Gaza may be given to another class of non-British nationals: those who (i) have a spouse/partner or a child aged 17 or under currently living in the UK and (ii) hold valid permission to enter or remain in the UK for longer than six months. Outside these policies, the Foreign Secretary retains a residual discretion to provide consular assistance to other non-British nationals in exceptional cases.

At 25 June 2025, that residual discretion had been used in only four cases. At the hearing on 9 July it was confirmed that there were a further 38 people known to the Foreign Office who have been granted permission or conditional permission to enter the UK but were being refused assistance on the grounds that their circumstances were not considered to be exceptional.

On the first ground, the High Court accepted three points made by the Foreign Secretary, including that it is for the decision maker to decide what is relevant when considering whether to make an exception to a policy. However this is subject to a rationality review and where the potential consequences of a decision are particularly grave the court will examine the decision more rigorously to ensure that it is not flawed.

The court said that:

In this case, the potential consequences of the decision under challenge are certainly grave. Although they have no anterior right to assistance, the effect of the challenged decision is to deny a family of six, including two minor children, the opportunity to escape from a place where they face the daily danger of death or injury from military action or starvation.

Addressing the Foreign Office’s concerns about using their diplomatic capital, the court said “the Foreign Secretary had to confront the question whether extending eligibility to those in the claimants’ position would, in fact, run down the UK’s diplomatic capital and, if so, by how much.” The dismissal of evidence relating to the viability of departure requests and that Israel may have changed its position about people being evacuated was deemed to be irrational. The judicial review succeeded on this ground.

On the article 8 point, the High Court held that there was no positive obligation to provide consular assistance in these circumstances and to hold otherwise would go beyond existing case law. 

Immigration matter appealed to Court of Appeal

In what certainly has every appearance of being a purely political decision, after initially confirming that the Upper Tribunal’s decision would not be appealed, the position changed after the case was raised in the House of Commons:

On 5 March 2025, the Home Secretary applied to the UT for permission to appeal out of time. The application was made without prejudice to the grant of entry clearance to the claimants, i.e. on the express basis that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, the claimants’ conditional leave to enter would be honoured. The UT refused permission to appeal. On 8 May 2025, permission to appeal was granted by Dingemans LJ. The appeal will consider, among other things, the circumstances in which the concept of “family life” in Article 8 extends beyond the core family. It is listed in January 2026.

So the issue arose because of a misunderstanding about the application process, but the appeal is proceeding on an entirely different basis, as the government seeks to restrict people’s right to a family life.

Conclusion

The UK should be doing everything it can to get people to safety. Instead, this obstructive approach to facilitating people’s exit from Gaza is inevitably costing lives. This failure should shame all those involved.