Home Secretary ordered to allow man to return to UK after telling airline not to fly him and cancelling his eVisa

This is one of those real train wrecks from the Home Office, where you may want to make yourself a large cup of coffee and read through the whole judgment. It features a person being wrongly told by the Home Office to make a No Time Limit application, followed by a mistaken grant of indefinite leave to remain, capped off with the Home Office decided to fix all of this by waiting until the claimant went on holiday before telling the airline they weren’t allowed to bring him back and removing access to his eVisa, leaving him destitute and living on the streets.

The case is R (FD) v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3291 (Admin).

Background

FD is a Jamaican national who had been subject to a deportation order in 2017, revoking his previous indefinite leave. In 2019 he claimed asylum and also made a human rights claim.

It appears that at some point the Home Office advised FD to make a No Time Limit application, the court said that there “is no reason to doubt FD’s evidence on this point, which is inherently credible”. He did so, declaring his criminal convictions and immigration status, and completed his biometrics.

In December 2024 FD was sent a letter saying that his application had been successful and that he had indefinite leave to remain in the UK. He was invited to apply for an eVisa which was issued to him with his status recorded as “settled”. In the months that followed he used his eVisa account to generate share codes to confirm the right to rent and work.

FD went on what was supposed to be a five day holiday to Turkey with friends in September 2025, checking his eVisa and ability to travel before he went. On 23 September 2025 the Home Secretary refused to authorise the airline to bring him back to the UK under the Authority to Carry Scheme 2023. Despite presenting the airline with his eVisa, his No Time Limit decision and a share code, he was denied boarding.  

On 29 September 2025 FD discovered that his eVisa had been removed from his UKVI account. On 2 October 2025 the Home Secretary notified FD that his asylum and human rights claims had been refused. His Turkish visa was valid for 90 days, to expire on 18 December 2025 and at the time of the hearing on 10 and 11 December 2025, FD was living on the streets of Turkey, destitute.

The judicial review

The judicial review proceedings were lodged on 23 October 2025 in the Upper Tribunal, with the matter being transferred to the Administrative Court on jurisdictional grounds. Challenges were brought against the decision to refuse to give the airline the authority to carry FD, the withdrawal of his eVisa and the decision to refuse his 2019 claim, it being argued that the latter was a nullity given the decision on the No Time Limit application in December 2024.

In the alternative, it was argued that the “decision was made deliberately, unfairly and unreasonably, after some 6 years delay, on 2 October 2025, without regard to material facts and when SSHD knew that FD was out of the country and unable to return to appeal against the decision”.

There were five grounds relating to the authority to carry point. The authority to carry scheme is made under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The Home Secretary relied on paragraph 14(f) which provides for discretionary refusal of authority for “Individuals who are the subject of a deportation order or whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making the subject of a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1971 or who were subject to deportation proceedings but left the UK before those proceedings concluded.”

It was argued on behalf of the claimant that this scheme was not applicable to him as there was no suggestion that he was a terrorist or posed any terrorism-related threat. The Home Secretary argued that the terrorism link was not necessary.

The court did not agree, saying that it was clear that “the whole object of the introduction of broad and intrusive powers provided to SSHD pursuant to the 2015 Act is the prevention of terrorism-related threats”. The decision to invoke the authority to carry scheme to prevent FD from returning to the UK was held to be unlawful and quashed. The decision was also held to be irrational because it was based on errors in the Home Office’s records.

The court accepted the Home Office’s evidence that FD had wrongly been told to make the No Time Limit application, which he was not eligible for, and said that it was “both fair and proportionate” for the Home Secretary to be able “to depart from the mistaken grant”. However, the court upheld another ground arguing that there had been a breach of FD’s legitimate expectation that his indefinite leave had been legally granted at the time, and that he would be allowed to return to the UK.

On the withdrawal of eVisa issue, the court declined to consider this at length, saying that it was the refusal of authority to carry that had prevented FD being able to return to the UK, not the lack of an eVisa. The court said that the Home Secretary would have been able to revoke the eVisa lawfully if in doing so “she did not thwart FD’s legitimate expectation in being able to return to the UK. Its revocation was and remains unlawful insofar as its absence may continue to prevent that return, and should be quashed.”

On the somewhat suspicious timing of the decision, the court said:

It is wholly understandable why the chronology of decision making would give rise to suspicion that the SSHD was engaged in a deliberate plan to prevent FD’s return, and whilst outside the UK, to determine the 2019 Claim. The fact that the 2019 Claim had been unresolved for 6 years; and had been largely completed in April 20205 awaiting finalisation and notification, it appears a remarkable coincidence that the determination of the claim followed FD’s unlawful exclusion from the UK by a matter of days.

The thing is, the Home Office really does have form in this area, so you can see why concerns were raised. But the court said that there was not enough evidence here to draw the conclusion that this had been done deliberately. In particular, the court accepted the Home Office’s evidence that if they had been aware that FD had left the country it was:

likely that they would, on the SSHD’s understanding that the December 2024 Email was a mistake and capable of revocation, have treated the claim as withdrawn pursuant to section 333C(b)(ii) of the Immigration Rules. It is more likely that the concatenation of events which led to the determination of FD’s claim whilst he was stranded abroad was not the result of conspiracy, but rather the result of systemic failure within the Home Office. One part of the Home Office was not aware of relevant decisions and actions taken in another part of the Home Office in respect of a particular individual.

Nevertheless, noting that the fact remains that there was an oversight by Home Office decision makers about the claimant being outside the UK at the time the decision was made, and that making the decision at that time had the effect of “materially altering FD’s rights”, the court quashed the decision.

Regardless of the appeal that the Home Secretary had indicated will be incoming, she has been ordered to facilitate FD’s return to the UK. Damages, one would hope, will follow.

Conclusion

This case gives rise to huge concerns about the way the Home Office can and will act arbitrarily in removing people’s access to their digital status, in circumstances where there are substantial failings in both their record keeping and decision making and with very serious consequences for those affected.