The case of a woman who was denied indefinite leave to remain in the UK even though her father and brothers were granted the status under the Windrush scheme must be reconsidered by the Home Office, the court of appeal has said.
Jeanell Hippolyte, a Saint Lucian national, originally came to the UK at the age of 17 in 2000, but left two years later to comply with immigration rules after her student visa expired.
She did not know that her father had indefinite leave to remain (ILR) and that, as his child, she could apply for the same status, the court heard.
Her brothers arrived in the UK in 2007 and had ILR applications refused. They overstayed in breach of immigration rules, but successfully applied for ILR under the Windrush scheme in 2019.
Hippolyte applied to the Windrush scheme in August 2020 and was refused in February 2021 because she had not been continuously resident in the UK since arriving in the country, the court heard.
She made a further application for ILR in December 2022, which was refused in April 2023. She took legal action to challenge this decision.
Responding to the ruling, Hippolyte said: “I’m delighted by the court’s decision and I am so grateful that the right outcome has happened. I feel that justice has been served.”
In a written ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Singh said: “It seems to me the judge nowhere addressed the core point … which was that [Hippolyte] had sufficient close ties to the UK that she fell within the ‘spirit’ of the Windrush scheme even if she did not strictly fall within its exact terms.”
However, he added that the appeal court’s decision did not mean that Hippolyte would necessarily succeed in her application.
“The reality is that she does not qualify under the terms of the Windrush scheme policy,” he said, but the respondent must consider exercising discretion conferred by parliament. “That is no more and no less than what the law requires.”
Freya Danby of Leigh Day, who represented Hippolyte, said: “Throughout this process, she has shown remarkable courage and resilience, continuing her fight for indefinite leave to remain despite numerous setbacks.
“Today’s judgment rightly recognises that the Home Office should have considered exercising discretion under the Windrush scheme.
“While Jeanell did not strictly meet the scheme’s criteria, her circumstances fall within its spirit.”
The case could have “a significant impact on other cases where people don’t squarely meet the rules”, she added.
