Skip to main content
Get Legal Advice
<p><strong><span style="color: #f7f6f2;">90 year old wins legal fight against Home Secretary&#039;s long routes to settlement</span></strong><span style="color: #f7f6f2;"> </span></p>

90 year old wins legal fight against Home Secretary's long routes to settlement 

Judgment
‹ Back to all News

We recently secured an important legal victory for a particularly vulnerable client in a win that also further chips away at the Home Secretary’s policies on long routes to settlement. Carlton Russell, a 90-year-old man with metastatic cancer who is receiving palliative care, had been refused indefinite leave to remain (ILR, also known as settlement) by the Home Secretary and granted just 30 months’ limited leave to remain on the 10-year route to settlement. We challenged this decision because, given his circumstances, continuing on the 10-year route to settlement was not a realistic prospect. For Carlton, being given limited leave to remain would cause him serious distress, anxiety and be detrimental to his health. 

On the 10-year route, a person typically has to pay visa extension fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge every two and a half years, making four extension applications over a decade before they can apply for settlement. For Carlton, this would mean submitting repeated applications despite being unable to manage the process independently, his care home being unable to help him, and struggling to access legal representation. This would have placed him at significant risk of falling off the 10-year route and becoming an immigration overstayer, with potentially devastating consequences.  

Our win for Carlton

On 14 October 2026, our legal challenge succeeded, and the Upper Tribunal overturned the Home Secretary’s decision to refuse Carlton ILR in JR-2025-MAN-000121 (Carlton Russell v SSHD). HHJ Sephton KC, sitting as an Upper Tribunal Judge, found that the Home Secretary had acted irrationally in refusing him ILR. The Judge also found that refusing Carlton ILR breached his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was a significant win, as the Home Office routinely contests Article 8 arguments in cases where someone already has leave to remain and is not facing removal from the UK. 

The judgment also has important implications for future cases. Although the Judge did not find the Home Secretary’s policy unlawful, they clarified that it does not prevent her from granting ILR to someone who is terminally ill and almost certain to qualify for further leave to remain, but whose circumstances make it unrealistic to keep applying for extensions.  

The Home Secretary had argued that Carlton's circumstances did not meet the policy’s high threshold of ‘truly exceptional circumstances’. However, the Judge recognised that the risk of someone being unable to maintain their immigration status because they cannot keep making future applications is a relevant factor when deciding whether to grant ILR outside the rules. 

The Judge found that the Home Secretary’s decision was not rationally open to her and concluded that there is a real and significant risk that Carlton would not be able to apply for further leave to remain with the consequence that he would become undocumented and lose the care support necessary for his existence. The Home Office must now make a new decision whether to grant Carlton ILR in accordance with the court’s judgment. They have until 4pm on 11 November to do this.

A huge thank you to everyone involved in this case and for helping secure this important outcome for Carlton. The legal team were Nicola Burgess from Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit instructing Charlotte Kilroy KC from Blackstone Chambers and Rowena Moffatt from Doughty Street Chambers. Thank you also to Nick Beales and the team at Refugee and Migrant Justice for their evidence in support.  

A win for our wider policy & campaigns work

Overall, this is an important win for Carlton and a significant step in our wider work challenging the 10-year route to settlement. It builds on the campaigning work of The VOICE lived experience action group, and our policy work, including the report A punishing process: experiences of the 10 year route, which we co-authored. The findings of this report demonstrate the unfairness of the 10-year route to settlement and were referenced in the judgment. As was evidence provided on behalf of Refugee Migrant Justice which spoke to the wider context of the unfairness of the 10-year route and evidence from Nicola Burgess from Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit about the lack of Legal Aid provision.  

Yet again, Carlton’s case shows the harm caused by the 10-year route. The proposed Earned Settlement reforms would extend routes to settlement to 10, 15 or even 20 years, prolonging uncertainty and suffering and putting many more people at risk of situations like Carlton's. Earned Settlement must be scrapped. Use our template to write to your MP and urge them to oppose these harmful proposals. 

Write to your MP - stop earned settlement!

Sign up to our Newsletter

Get resources, news, events and more directly to your mailbox. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Exit Site