Immigration enforcement interview at train station ruled procedurally unfair

A care worker has successfully challenged the Home Office’s decision to curtail his skilled worker visa after the High Court found immigration enforcement officers failed to ensure procedural fairness when conducting an interview in the middle of Birmingham New Street Station.

Background

The claimant in R (On the Application of Mamun Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2333 (Admin) had been granted a skilled migrant worker visa in October 2023 to work for a care sponsor in Aylesbury. His employment was due to commence on 1 January 2024 and he entered the UK on 12 December 2023.

Ten days after his employment was due to begin, on 11 January 2024, the care worker was approached by immigration enforcement officers at Birmingham New Street Station. They claimed the care worker appeared nervous and walked away upon seeing them, prompting them to engage with him.

During the interview the care worker allegedly admitted he had not started working at the care home, had not contacted his sponsor since arrival, and had been working part-time at his uncle’s restaurant for £40 cash in hand. Based on these alleged admissions, officers concluded he had breached his visa conditions by working in unauthorised employment.

His leave was curtailed with immediate effect, and he was arrested and detained for several days.

Judicial Review

The care worker challenged both the decision to curtail his visa and his detention on grounds of procedural unfairness.

The interview took place on a seat in the middle of Birmingham New Street Station, in full public view, with no measures taken to ensure the care worker could concentrate on questions in his second language or to reduce the impact of surrounding noise and distractions. The care worker asserted that the circumstances of the interview led to his answers being misunderstood or not properly recorded.

He strongly disputed the accuracy of the interview notes, maintaining that he told the immigration enforcement officers he had only occasionally helped his uncle without payment, receiving money as maintenance rather than wages. He also asserted that he contacted his sponsor upon arrival in the UK but was told that they were not ready for him to start.

The court examined the circumstances of the interview and found fundamental flaws in how the interview was conducted, emphasising the challenging physical circumstances:

To conduct questioning of the centrality and importance to the Claimant’s immediate and long-term future without any regard to the physical surroundings and their impact on the process created is, in my judgment, procedural unfairness.

The Home Office argued that even if procedural unfairness was established, the outcome would have been highly likely to be the same. The court rejected this argument, finding that had matters been properly investigated, particularly with the sponsor, the Home Office might well have exercised its discretion differently.

The court quashed both the curtailment decision and the detention that followed from it.

Takeaways

The judgment serves as a reminder that while the Home Office has broad enforcement powers, these must be exercised fairly.

It also highlights potential vulnerabilities for workers during the period between arrival and employment commencement. While workers have 28 days from their stated start date to begin employment, this case shows how easily legitimate situations can be misunderstood during enforcement encounters. The care worker’s alleged admission that he had not contacted his sponsor became a key concern for officers, even though he maintained he had contacted them and been told to wait.

For sponsors, this underscores the importance of maintaining clear communication records with incoming workers. If a worker is told to delay their start within the permitted 28-day window, sponsors should consider providing written confirmation that contact has been made and employment will commence within the permitted timeframe. This could prove invaluable if workers are questioned by enforcement officers.

For workers, the case demonstrates the risks of informal family support being misconstrued as employment. Receiving money from family members for living expenses while awaiting work commencement is not the same as paid employment, but such distinctions can easily be lost in a noisy train station interview without proper safeguards.