The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 22 May 2026 in the Home Secretary's appeal over a refused indefinite leave application, dismissing one ground of appeal and allowing the other.
Key facts
- Who: The parties, Mr Jimoh and the Home Secretary; the case concerns how two Home Office policies on discretionary leave and medical claims are read.
- From: 22 May 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Jimoh (R, on the application of), [2026] EWCA Civ 643
In [2026] EWCA Civ 643, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment on 22 May 2026 on the Home Secretary's appeal against a High Court order requiring indefinite leave to be granted. The court comprised Lord Justice Baker, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing. The hearing took place on 7 May 2026. The judgment quoted here is that of Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing.
Background
Mr Jimoh is a Nigerian national, born in 1985. His date of entry to the United Kingdom is recorded differently: he claimed 1989 or 30 November 1990, while Home Office records give 7 July 1990. He was diagnosed with Hepatitis B in 1998 and had a kidney removed between 2002 and 2004. He was given indefinite leave on 17 February 2001. He was fined for possessing an offensive weapon in 2004 and convicted in 2006 of possessing Class A drugs.
On 3 October 2023 he applied for indefinite leave to remain (ILR). The Home Secretary refused it (decision 1) and decided instead to give him discretionary leave to remain (DL) (decision 2). Mr Jimoh applied for judicial review of the refusal. The Home Secretary reconsidered twice. In the High Court, Ms Justice Obi quashed the decision made on the second reconsideration (decision 4) and ordered the Home Secretary to give him ILR ([2025] EWHC 3129 (Admin)).
The question
The appeal concerned the correct construction of two Home Office policies: the policy on discretionary leave, including its transitional arrangements, and the policy on claims for leave on medical grounds. The essential difference was whether the Home Secretary can rely in successive decisions on the same factor, here a past criminal conviction, to displace the presumption that she will "normally" grant ILR after a specific period of DL, or whether, as the High Court held, she can rely on it only once.
The decision
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing said she would dismiss the appeal on ground 1 and allow it on ground 2.
The policy
The judgment sets out the discretionary leave policy at length. It records that criminals "should not normally benefit" from discretionary leave, that settlement is "a privilege, not an automatic right", and that a person with ten continuous years of DL should be granted settlement "unless there are any criminality or exclusion issues". Transitional arrangements apply to those first given DL before 9 July 2012.
What this means for people applying for indefinite leave after discretionary leave
The Court of Appeal's judgment concerns how the Home Office's discretionary leave policy and its medical claims policy are to be read, including whether a past conviction can be relied on in more than one decision. The judgment itself should be read for how it applies to any other situation.
Sources
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Jimoh (R, on the application of) [2026] EWCA Civ 643, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 22 May 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/643