Boy refused permission to stay in UK over unpaid £2.5k fee wins case
10 April 2025, 14:42
A boy who was refused indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK after being unable to pay the almost £2,500 application fee has won a High Court battle against the Home Office.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
The child, known only as CPH, was born and has lived in the UK since birth, but he was refused permission to stay in the country in January 2024 when he was aged eight.
Jonathan Moffett KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said in a ruling that neither the boy nor his mother could “pay the requisite fee” for the application for ILR in October 2022, which at the time was £2,404.
The Home Office deemed the indefinite leave application “invalid” due to the fee not having been paid, and also refused to use its discretion to grant it.
The boy and his mother challenged the decision at the High Court in February, claiming it was unlawful.
Mr Moffett ruled on Wednesday the decision should be quashed, and the boy’s case reconsidered.
Read more: Nearly quarter of children spend more than four hours a day on devices
Read more: Cabinet Office to shed 2,100 jobs as Government shrinks Civil Service
The boy’s mother, who is Kenyan, arrived in the UK in 2007, with the boy applying for ILR in 2022.
The Home Office granted him 30 months’ limited leave in November 2022, but in March 2023 said it was “not accepted” that the boy’s circumstances were “sufficiently exceptional or compelling that a grant of ILR is necessary and justified”.
The department reconsidered its position in July 2023, but found the requirement to pay a fee was “mandatory”, finally dismissing the application on January 31 last year, claiming it was “not appropriate” in the boy’s case.
At a hearing in London earlier this year, barristers for the boy claimed the decision was unlawful as it breached the Home Office’s duty to safeguard children’s welfare, while the department opposed the challenge.
In his ruling, Mr Moffett dismissed several grounds of the boy’s challenge, but said the Home Office had not “properly treated the claimant’s best interests as a primary consideration” and therefore “did not comply” with its duty, meaning the decision was unlawful.
