Can an immigration decision be put on ice during a criminal investigation?

This was the question before the Court of Appeal in R (X and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 1480. The court decided that the answer is “yes”, with some caveats.

Challenge to five-year delay pending fraud investigation

The case concerned a family who applied to extend their permission in the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route in April 2017. Shortly before they lodged the applications, HM Revenue and Customs launched a criminal investigation into the main applicant, Mr X. He and 12 other people were suspected of being involved in a tax fraud conspiracy.

Mr X was arrested but not charged and released on bail in 2016 while the investigation went on. It proved particularly complex, with HMRC seizing around 800 pieces of evidence and obtaining information about over 100 bank accounts. Further delays were caused by litigation over the legality of the search warrants used to obtain much of the evidence. At the date of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the investigation remained ongoing.

At some point, the Home Office decided to delay making a decision on Mr X’s Entrepreneur application, as well as those of his dependants, until HMRC concluded its investigation. That decision was communicated to the family in 2017.

The family challenged the Home Office’s decision to delay its decision on their immigration applications, alleging that:

  • There is no power to delay deciding an immigration application in these circumstances
  • Doing so imposed an additional requirement (i.e. to not be charged with an offence) on the applicants that is not in the Immigration Rules
  • The Home Office’s actions were unlawful and irrational

The Upper Tribunal dismissed their claim. The family appealed.

There is an implied power to defer making a decision…

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s finding that although there was no express power to this effect,

there was an implied power under the [Immigration Act 1971]… to defer, or delay, taking a decision on an application for leave to remain. Such a power is incidental or ancillary to the statutory functions conferred upon the Secretary of State by the Act.

As a procedural decision, it was not held to be importing an additional requirement into the Immigration Rules, as it was not a requirement which the applicants had to satisfy.

…but it has to be exercised lawfully

Although the Secretary of State has a power to delay deciding an application, it will not always be lawful to do so. One of the authorities cited by Lord Justice Lewis was R (S) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 546, in which the decision to delay making decisions in asylum cases in order to meet Treasury targets was found to be unlawful and an abuse of power.

On the facts of this case, however, Lewis LJ held that the reasons given for delaying making a decision – that the outcome of the HMRC investigation had a direct bearing on how the applications should be decided and that it would be a waste of time and resources for the Home Office to attempt to carry out its own investigation – were rational.

Of course, this will offer little comfort to the family involved, already waiting five years and counting for a decision on their applications. As the court was at pains to stress, though, the family has section 3C leave so they have remained lawfully in the country throughout all this.

Delays beget delays

Although this is a relative niche decision unlikely to affect that many people, widespread delays across the criminal justice system (exacerbated by the pandemic) mean criminal suspects are having to wait longer and longer for their cases to wind through the system. That will inevitably have a ripple effect on any pending immigration applications. The consequences will be felt particularly keenly by any dependants who are not facing criminal charges themselves but who are nevertheless stuck waiting until their sponsor’s criminal case is resolved.

Like this article? Share on


Related articles

Information about our own complaints process, raising concerns to the Legal Ombudsman and to us

We want to give you the best possible service. However, if at any point you become unhappy or concerned about the service we provided then you should inform us immediately, so that we can do our best to resolve the problem.

In the first instance it may be helpful to contact the person who is working on your case to discuss your concerns and we will do our best to resolve any issues at this stage. If you would like to make a formal complaint, then you can read our full complaints procedure here. Making a complaint will not affect how we handle your case.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority can help you if you are concerned about our behaviour. This could be for things like dishonesty, taking or losing your money or treating you unfairly because of your age, a disability or other characteristic. 

You can raise your concerns with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

What do to if we cannot resolve your complaint

The Legal Ombudsman can help you if we are unable to resolve your complaint ourselves. They will look at your complaint independently and it will not affect how we handle your case.

Before accepting a complaint for investigation, the Legal Ombudsman will check that you have tried to resolve your complaint with us first. If you have, then you must take your complaint to the Legal Ombudsman:

  • Within six months of receiving our final response to your complaint; and,
  • Within one year of the date of the act or omission about which you are concerned; or
  • Within one year of you realising that there was a concern.


If you would like more information about the Legal Ombudsman, you can contact them at the following details:

 Contact details

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By closing this message, you consent to our cookies on this device in accordance with our cookie policy unless you have disabled them.