Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 preserves the substantive rights attached to earlier leave, but does not itself require immediate digital proof of that status. Whether the absence of such proof is irrational depends on the evidence of harm, its scale, existing verification arrangements, and the practicability of the proposed alternative. The burden remains on the claimant. A staged eVisa rollout could not be treated as evidence that immediate universal provision was practicable where the evidence pointed the other way. The Padfield principle concerns the exercise of a specific statutory power and was not the appropriate analytical tool for a general ancillary administrative power. The section 55 issue was adjourned because the relevant decision-maker and decision had not been identified with sufficient specificity.

RAMFEL and Ms Adjei challenged the Secretary of State’s failure to provide immediate documentary or digital proof for migrants whose leave was extended automatically under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. Cavanagh J allowed the claims on Wednesbury unreasonableness and section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, making declarations, but rejected the Padfield ground: [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin). The Secretary of State appealed. The respondents cross-appealed on Padfield; they did not pursue the public sector equality duty ground. The Court of Appeal considered whether the staged introduction of eVisas was irrational, whether Padfield applied to the Secretary of State’s ancillary administrative powers, and whether the section 55 challenge could be determined without identifying when and by whom the relevant decision was made.

Sir Nicholas Underhill gave the leading judgment. Elisabeth Laing LJ and Baker LJ agreed.

1. Disposition. The Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed on ground 1. The respondents’ cross-appeal on Padfield was dismissed. The section 55 ground was adjourned for further submissions.
2. Rationality. The Wednesbury threshold is met only where a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it, or lies outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker. Courts must recognise that administrative systems involve judgments properly entrusted to ministers. The possibility of a better system does not establish irrationality.
3. Section 3C leave. The legislation preserves the rights attached to previous primary leave and may implicitly require an effective means of demonstrating those rights. It does not, however, establish a requirement of immediate demonstrability. Where the legislation says nothing about documentation, the Secretary of State retains discretion over the means and timing of verification, including practical constraints.
4. Application. The lower court was not entitled to infer from the gradual eVisa rollout that immediate digital provision to the whole section 3C cohort was practicable. Evidence showed that the existing programme could not simply be converted retrospectively. The claimants had not established that the staged approach could or should have been abandoned. The irrationality finding therefore could not stand.
5. Padfield. Padfield is distinct from Wednesbury. It addresses the exercise of a specific statutory power or discretion in a manner frustrating the statutory purpose. The documentation power arose from general ancillary and administrative powers implied by the Immigration Act 1971, not from a defined statutory documentation scheme. It could therefore be challenged, in practical terms, for irrationality or bad faith, but the Padfield analysis did not apply.
6. Section 55. The Court considered that [2025] EWCA Civ 1273 might require identification of the specific decision attracting the section 55 duty, including who made it and when. The parties were invited to make sequential written submissions, after which the Court would decide whether a further hearing was necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal was allowed on the Wednesbury ground, the cross-appeal on Padfield was dismissed, and the section 55 ground was adjourned.
2. High Court, Administrative Court. Cavanagh J held that the failure to provide digital proof of section 3C status was Wednesbury unreasonable and breached section 55, making declarations; the decision is reported at [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin).