Today, we’re celebrating. The Home Office has agreed to grant Nelson Shardey permanent stay in the UK. This comes after GMIAU represented him in a legal challenge, and Nelson and his family spoke out against his unjust treatment. The Home Office has now backed down, meaning the family don’t have to go through court proceedings and Nelson will be granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR). It also means thousands of pounds will be donated to three North West charities. Read on to find out why.
Nelson’s story
A “local legend” who has lived in the UK since 1977 and become an important pillar of his Wallasey community, Nelson believed he was British until 2019. But that year, he found out he had no legal status in the UK. He found himself navigating the confusing and expensive world of immigration applications. He received 2.5 years limited leave to remain on the 10-year route to settlement, but when he had to renew his leave to remain without legal representation, he submitted the wrong application by accident, and lost his status. He was advised to make an application for citizenship under the Windrush Scheme – but after a long wait, he was told he was not eligible for this route. We now know that during this process, a Home Office caseworker made a recommendation to grant Nelson ILR due to his exceptional circumstances. But that advice was not taken, and the Home Office told Nelson he would have to apply for limited leave to remain and start the 10-year route again. So in 2023 Nelson found himself back at square one, now in his mid-70s.
This was when GMIAU’s Nicola Burgess took his case on. It was clear to us: Nelson should be allowed to immediately settle in the UK.
The legal challenge
Nicola’s legal challenge against the Home Office’s decision not to grant Nelson ILR took the form of a Judicial Review. The Home Office agreed to reconsider. But then, again, they refused him, saying that Nelson’s case was not exceptional, and that he needed to complete a 10-year “probationary period” before being allowed to settle in the UK. The family decided to keep fighting to secure ILR and to try and change these unjust rules. Nicola’s challenge was not just about Nelson: she argued that requiring such a long “probationary period” was irrational. (See her legal explainer below for more details.)
Continuing this fight meant financial risk for the family. If the case had gone to court and they had lost, they would have had to pay the Home Office’s legal fees, which were likely to come to tens of thousands of pounds. But they said “Whatever the outcome, we would much rather have tried than to have submitted to a biased system that penalises the most vulnerable in our society.”
To meet those possible costs, the family decided to crowdfund via GoFundMe. As well as financially preparing, they wanted to raise awareness about what they were going through: the stress and upset caused to a pensioner and his family by the Home Office.
The public’s reaction
It was immediately clear when Nelson spoke out in the media that his story touched people. As well as journalists we reached out to at the BBC, Guardian and Liverpool Echo, his story spread further, in almost all major outlets, and even international news outlets. As well as those with a local connection like ITV Granada, Nelson appeared on some huge national platforms, including This Morning. His story was shared widely in videos on Youtube and TikTok. In other words, Nelson went viral!
In the days after his story hit the headlines, donations poured in to Nelson’s GoFundMe campaign – over £47,000, well over the £20,000 target the family had set. Reading the outpouring of messages of support, it was easy to see why. Many people who have known Nelson as a community member for many years were shocked at his treatment, and were following his story closely.
Everyone was asking the same question: why are the Home Office doing this? It struck many as needlessly cruel to force Nelson to complete 10 years of immigration applications and fees, with temporary status and restricted support during those years.
And finally, the Home Office backed down.
This means that they have agreed to grant Nelson ILR “outside the rules”, because they accept that his case is exceptional, and they will waive payment of the application fee. This is a victory for Nelson. He will now have the certainty and security of settled status in his retirement, after a lifetime spent at the heart of his local community. After one year of having ILR, he will be able to apply for British Citizenship. It also means that the money the family raised through GoFundMe will now go to charity.
Nelson said:
When I heard the news that I would be granted Indefinite Leave to Remain here, I was overwhelmed, and very very very happy, and relieved. All along I had tried to bottle every feeling in me so that my children wouldn’t be worrying about me. I was so relieved that in the end, we have won the battle. Now we hope to win the war: for the authorities to agree that the 10-year route is inhuman, and abolish it or shorten it.
I would like to thank everybody who believed in us and supported us in words and donations. That makes me really really happy. When you hear birds chirping in trees or flying overheard, believe me – that is me and children thanking you from the bottom of our hearts.
Nelson’s sons Aaron and Jacob said:
Dad’s victory means the absolute world to us. We are so grateful to our legal team at the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit and to everyone who supported us throughout this process – from sharing our story to donating, we cannot thank you enough.
Now, we are honoured to share the funds raised among Dad’s three chosen charities: Clatterbridge Cancer Charity, the Boaz Trust and the Wirral Foodbank.
We hope that this victory inspires others to speak out and come forward so they can seek the justice they deserve.

The 10-year route
Our legal challenge highlighted Nelson’s circumstances, the decades serving his community in the UK, and the fact that a Home Office caseworker had already recommended to grant him ILR “outside the rules” on this basis. But this challenge was not only about Nelson. Thousands of people across the UK are on the 10-year route. For all of them, being on the route in itself means they have stories that embed them in their communities – either because they have been here for a very long time already, or because of their families here. The route involves complex applications, extortionate visa fees, a default “no recourse to public funds” condition, and is often made harder by Home Office delays in decision making. Our research has shown that:
- The 10-year route causes financial hardship, housing and employment insecurity;
- Being on the 10-year route has a negative impact on people’s mental health, relationships and family life, affecting whole families; and
- Due to the length of the route, cost of fees, complexity of applications, and lack of legal aid, people are vulnerable to “falling off” the route and losing their status completely
10 years was too long for Nelson to wait, and we’re celebrating that he won’t have to. It’s also too long for anyone. No one should have to wait for a ten-year “probationary period” when they have already shown that their life and future is in the UK. We hope Nelson’s case will pave the way for others. We hope that the new government will recognise and prioritise the need to end the 10-year route and make it easier for people to get permanent status in the UK.
We’re asking the next government:
- to cap all routes to settlement at 5 years;
- to reduce fees on the 10-year route to administrative costs and make fee waivers easier to access including the introduction of a fee waiver at the ILR stage; and
- to end the default “no recourse to public funds” condition given to people on the 10-year route
We’re also asking local and combined authorities to ensure they are meeting their duties and commitments to residents on the 10-year route – see our recent briefing for details.
We would like to thank Praxis and IPPR for providing evidence in support of Nelson’s challenge. We would also like to thank counsel, Rowena Moffatt of Doughty Street Chambers, for her support.
Finally, we would like to thank Nelson, Aaron and Jacob Shardey. Their story and bravery touched the nation.
Legal explainer
Nicola Burgess
The Home Office have the power to grant ILR outside of the Immigration Rules on a discretionary basis under Section 3 (1) b of the Immigration Act 1971. The application of this discretion is prescribed by various Home Office policies. The applicable policy to Nelson states:
Indefinite leave to enter or remain can be granted outside the rules where the grounds are so exceptional that they warrant it. Such cases are likely to be extremely rare. The length of leave will depend on the circumstances of the case.
…
Applicants seeking ILR outside the Immigration Rules should provide details as to why they should be granted ILR rather than limited leave. ILR is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement. Unless there are truly exceptional reasons, the expectation is that applicants should start a route to ILR and serve a probationary period of limited leave before being eligible to apply for ILR. However, there may be an exceptionally unusual case where ILR is the only viable option, because a short period of leave is not appropriate because there are the most exceptional compelling compassionate grounds.
Our argument was always that in light of Nelson’s particular facts, it was a breach of his Article 8 ECHR rights (the right to a private and family life) for him to complete a further 10-year probationary period before being eligible to apply for settlement.
Like the original Home Office caseworker, we were of the view that Nelson should be granted ILR. Given the public’s reaction, this sentiment was shared far and wide. We argued that the Home Office’s policy had not properly been applied. In support we were able to point to the fact that the decision failed to consider the detrimental impact on Nelson’s welfare caused by the onerous nature of the 10-year route, combined with the impact on his identity and integration of being required to remain on a precarious route for a lengthy period of time when he has identified as British, and has had, as recognised by the Home Office, his whole life here for many decades.
Finally, we argued that the Home Office’s policy itself is unlawful. Although they are permitted to apply a staged approach to settlement, the current policy is too restrictive. In particular, we argued that the requirement to serve a probationary period of a continuous 10 years’ residence with precarious leave (ie. the 10-year route) where it is certain (or as certain as it can be) that a person will continue to have a private and/or family life right to remain in the UK in the future is irrational.
We were granted permission by the court to argue all grounds, and thanks to the bravery of Nelson and his family, combined with the outpouring of financial support from those who heard Nelson’s story, we were all set to fight these important issues for Nelson and many others in his situation in court on 10 October 2024.
Following the submission of our amended grounds and evidence, the Home Office agreed to grant Nelson ILR outside of the Immigration Rules and to waive the application fee.
Although the court will no longer hear the wider policy challenge to the 10-year route in Nelson’s case, GMIAU will continue to fight against the unfairness of the 10-year route through our policy and legal work.