In a pivotal judgment handed down on 9 April 2025, the High Court ruled that part of the UK Home Office’s immigration guidance—Family Policy: Family life (as a partner or parent) and exceptional circumstances, Version 21.0—was unlawful. The decision arises in the case of R (CPH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 848 (Admin), which involved an eight-year-old child born in the UK who was eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under Appendix Private Life but was unable to afford the £2,404 application fee.

Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Moffett KC held that the Home Office’s discretion guidance unlawfully constrained decision-makers by requiring “particularly exceptional or compelling reasons” before ILR could be granted outside the Immigration Rules. The court found this standard to be inconsistent with the Secretary of State’s statutory obligation under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration in immigration decisions.

At paragraph 150 of the judgment, Moffett KC concluded:

“The discretion guidance is unlawful because… in a case such as the Claimant’s, the discretion guidance purports positively to authorise or approve the decision-maker reaching a decision in a manner which does not comply with the s.55 duty.”

Moreover, the individual decision made in the claimant’s case—refusing to grant ILR despite the child’s clear eligibility and inability to pay—was also declared unlawful. The court emphasized at paragraph 187:

“I do not consider that the Secretary of State properly treated the Claimant’s best interests as a primary consideration… [T]he Secretary of State did not comply with the s.55 duty.”

The ruling does not, however, disturb other aspects of the immigration framework. Claims based on Article 8 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as irrationality arguments, were rejected—reflecting the uphill battle these grounds often face, as seen in earlier cases like Quaye and Sullivan.

This case marks a significant development in the protection of children’s rights within the UK immigration system, particularly where affordability prevents access to legal entitlements under the Immigration Rules​.