The Court of Appeal held a man who obtained leave to remain by falsely stating his age and nationality was not "lawfully resident" under section 117C while he held that leave, and dismissed his appeal.
Key facts
- Who: People facing deportation as foreign criminals who rely on the "lawfully resident for most of life" exception, where the earlier leave was obtained by a criminal false statement, as in this case
- From: 27 February 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Albert Bokqiu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 191
In Albert Bokqiu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 191, decided on 27 February 2026, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) considered how section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 applies to someone whose leave to remain was obtained by lying about his nationality and age. Lord Justice Dingemans gave the lead judgment, and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Cobb agreed. The appeal was from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
Background
Mr Bokqiu, an Albanian national born on 10 August 1982, entered the UK on 4 October 2000, aged 18. He claimed asylum as an unaccompanied minor from Kosovo. The claim was refused, but because he was believed to be a minor he was granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) until 10 August 2003. He was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) on 5 January 2011.
His ILR was revoked on 11 November 2020 on the basis that it had been obtained by deception. On 24 January 2022 he was convicted of being concerned in the production of cannabis and of an offence involving criminal property, and was sentenced to 3 years 2 months' imprisonment. The Secretary of State refused his human rights claim on 25 January 2023 and a deportation order was made.
The question
Section 117C(4) sets out Exception 1 to deportation. It applies where a person has been lawfully resident in the UK for most of their life, is socially and culturally integrated, and would face very significant obstacles to integration in the country of deportation. The question was whether time spent with ELR and ILR obtained by false statements counted as lawful residence.
The decision
The court held that it did not. It was common ground that obtaining leave by deception has been a criminal offence under section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971, and that the ILR, though liable to revocation, could not be cancelled retrospectively. So Mr Bokqiu did have leave at the relevant times. The court said that this did not answer whether he was "lawfully resident".
The reasoning
Lord Justice Dingemans gave three reasons:
- A status obtained by committing a criminal offence cannot reasonably be described as "lawful".
- A status obtained by fraud cannot be equated with one obtained without deception; fraud "unravels all".
- This fits the purpose of Exception 1, which recognises long and lawful presence. It is not reasonable to place weight on the private life of a person whose presence was founded on a lie.
The appeal was dismissed. A second ground, about the period between the asylum claim and the grant of ELR, did not need to be decided.
What this means for people facing deportation
Holding leave at a given time did not, in this case, mean that time counted as "lawful residence" under section 117C(4)(a). The court reached that view because the ELR and ILR had been obtained by a criminal false statement about age and nationality.
Anyone in a deportation case where questions arise about how their leave was obtained, or about how time in the UK is counted, should get advice before any appeal deadline passes.
Sources
- Albert Bokqiu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 191, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 27 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/191