Home Office rules that could put millions of EU citizens at risk of job losses or deportation after Brexit have been found to be unlawful by the high court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the current EU settlement scheme, EU citizens who had been in the country for less than five years before Brexit and who had \u201cpre-settled status\u201d are obliged to reapply to upgrade their status to \u201csettled status\u201d after being in the country for five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If they did not, they would automatically lose their rights to reside, work, rent property or access services including the NHS, under Home Office rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But in a ruling handed out on Wednesday in the high court, Justice Lane described the rule as \u201cwrong in law and that the EU settlement scheme is accordingly unlawful\u201d as it \u201cpurports to abrogate the right of permanent residence\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lane ruled that a right of residence could only be lost in very specific circumstances that were clearly defined in the withdrawal agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The loss of rights because someone failed to apply to upgrade from pre-settled status to settled status was not one of those circumstances, Lane said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the UK and the EU agreed that both EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU could lawfully remain in the countries they lived in if they had settled there before Brexit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But only the UK and Slovenia required citizens to make a second application to remain if they had been in the country for less than five years, the court was told.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the Home Office rules, if any of those with \u201cpre-settled status\u201d did not apply to upgrade their status to \u201csettled status\u201d after being in the country for five years they would automatically lose their rights to reside, work, rent property or access services including the NHS. They were also liable to deportation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lane said he had \u201cno reason to doubt\u201d that the Home Office would support vulnerable people with pre-settled status but that the withdrawal agreement \u201cprecluded\u201d the Home Office from imposing a requirement for further leave to be in the country as a \u201ccondition for retaining such rights\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He said: \u201cIf the defendant is right, a very large number of people face the most serious uncertainty.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Home Office minister Lord Murray said the government took its \u201cobligations to securing their [EU citizens\u2019] rights in the UK very seriously. The EU settlement scheme goes above and beyond our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, protecting EU citizens\u2019 rights and giving them a route to settlement in the UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe are disappointed by this judgment, which we intend to appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judicial review of the Home Office\u2019s interpretation of agreement had been taken by the Independent Monitoring Authority, a statutory body set up to protect EU citizens\u2019 rights in the UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IMA chief executive, Kathryn Chamberlain, said she was \u201cpleased that the judge has recognised the significant impact the issue could have had on the lives and livelihoods of citizens with pre-settled status in the UK\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen we brought this judicial review, our intention was to provide clarity for citizens with pre-settled status, of which there were over 2.4 million when we filed this case in December 2021. This judgment that the current system is unlawful provides that clarity,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The campaign group the3million said: \u201cWe strongly welcome this judgment, which stands to protect vulnerable citizens who are granted pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, and who could lose their right to work, rent, travel, benefits, healthcare and more \u2013 just for not making a further application in the years ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe are pleased that the judge agrees with the3million that the point of the EU settlement scheme is to create a clear distinction between those who are beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement and those who are not. Once a beneficiary, people cannot lose their rights just by forgetting to make a second UK immigration application \u2013 the withdrawal agreement does not allow it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The group, which supported the case, said such a rule would impact some of the most vulnerable in society including children and elderly in care, victims of domestic abuse who did not have paperwork and those who for one reason or another led chaotic lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n