The Court of Appeal heard a Pakistani national's challenge to a refusal of authority for an airline to carry him to the UK and to an exclusion direction, in a judgment dated 29 July 2026.
Key facts
- Who: People outside the UK who are the subject of deportation action and may be refused travel under the Authority to Carry Scheme
- From: 29 July 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Sohail Tasib, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 996
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down its judgment in [2026] EWCA Civ 996 on 29 July 2026. Lord Justice Lewis gave the judgment, sitting with Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Sir Nicholas Underhill. The appeal was heard on 1 and 2 July 2026.
Background
Mr Sohail Tasib is a Pakistani national who has lived in the UK since 1998. He held indefinite leave to remain from June 2006 until it was cancelled in June 2025. His wife is a British citizen. In November 2018 he was sentenced to 52 months' imprisonment for drug and driving offences.
On 16 September 2024 he travelled to Pakistan with his wife to visit his father-in-law, who had suffered a heart attack. On 25 September 2024 the Home Secretary served a "stage 1" notice at his UK address, saying she proposed to make a deportation order and inviting representations. He went to an airport in Pakistan, and authority for the airline to carry him was refused on 27 September 2024. On 13 June 2025 he was told that the Home Secretary had personally directed that he be excluded from the UK as conducive to the public good.
The Scheme
The Authority to Carry Scheme is made under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Paragraph 14(f) allows authority to carry to be refused for people who are subject to a deportation order, whom the Home Secretary is "in the process of making the subject of a deportation order", or who were subject to deportation proceedings but left the UK before they concluded.
The questions
Mr Tasib challenged both decisions by judicial review. The High Court (Mrs Justice Farbey) dismissed some grounds and refused permission on others. Four issues came before the Court of Appeal:
- whether he was a person the Home Secretary was "in the process of" making the subject of a deportation order when the stage 1 notice was served
- whether the refusal was a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8
- whether the exclusion direction was unlawful because the refusal it relied on was itself unlawful
- whether there was power to make an exclusion direction against a Commonwealth citizen
A fifth issue came from the Home Secretary: whether a person outside the UK when authority was refused is within UK jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention, so that Article 8 applies.
Procedural points
Lord Justice Lewis said he would grant permission to apply for judicial review on the third and fourth issues and keep the hearing of those grounds in the Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary's notice raising the fifth issue was served on 5 June 2026, more than two months late. He regarded the delay as significant and the reason given as inadequate. He would still grant an extension of time and permission to rely on the point, because it is an important point of law, no further evidence was needed, and Mr Tasib did not object.
What this means for people facing deportation action
Paragraph 14(f) is worded to cover people who are the subject of a deportation order, those the Home Secretary is in the process of making the subject of one, and those who left the UK before deportation proceedings concluded. In this case, a refusal of authority to carry and a separate exclusion direction were each challenged on different grounds.
Anyone who has received a deportation notice, an authority to carry refusal or an exclusion decision should check the deadlines in their own documents and get legal advice before those deadlines pass.
Sources
- Sohail Tasib, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 996, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 July 2026