A woman who was denied indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK despite her brothers and father being given the status under the Windrush Scheme was “penalised for having complied with immigration control”, the High Court has heard.
Jeanell Hippolyte, 41, is challenging the Home Office’s refusal to review its decision to deny her application to gain ILR in the UK after it was given to her brothers and father because of the latter’s Windrush status.
At a hearing in London, her lawyers said that her case was “identical” to those of her brothers and that the refusal decision should be quashed.
The Home Office is opposing the challenge, arguing that Ms Hippolyte’s application was “lawfully refused”.
During a two-day hearing, the High Court heard that Ms Hippolyte, a Saint Lucian national, originally came to the UK as a 17-year-old student in 2000 but left in 2002 to comply with immigration rules after her student visa expired.
In written submissions, her barrister, Chris Buttler KC, said Ms Hippolyte’s father’s ILR status was not officially granted until 2003, and that she left the UK because the Home Office failed to issue identity status documents to her father which confirmed this.
Ms Hippolyte “did not make an application because she did not know that her father had ILR” status, Mr Buttler said.
Her brothers arrived in the UK in 2007, the court heard, and had ILR applications refused but overstayed, breaching immigration rules, until they successfully applied under the Windrush Scheme in 2019.
Mr Buttler continued: “Here the only relevant difference between the claimant and her brothers is that she complied with immigration control and they did not.
“In all other respects they are identical.”
The barrister added: “The brothers were rewarded for breaching immigration control and the claimant was penalised for having complied with immigration control.”
William Hansen, representing the Home Office, said in written submissions that Ms Hippolyte applied to the Windrush Scheme in August 2020, which was refused in February 2021 because she had “not been continuously resident in the UK” since arriving in the country.
He said a request to review the application was rejected in July 2021, and a fresh application to the scheme was made in October 2022.
The new application was refused on the same grounds, with further reviews rejected in 2023.
Mr Hansen said in written submissions: “There has been no historic or historical injustice in relation to this claimant.”
He said: “The primary submission is that the comparison with the treatment of Ms Hippolyte’s other siblings is misplaced because they were in a materially different position, not just in terms of continuous residence but in other respects too.”
Mr Hansen added: “Continuous residence requirements in various forms are a staple feature of immigration rules.
“It ensures that the connection with the UK is strong and subsisting.
“Were the position otherwise, Ms Hippolyte and others like her would be in a better position than children with IRL whose leave lapsed on leaving the common travel area but who otherwise might have much stronger connections to the UK.
“That would be entirely illogical.”
Mr Justice Sheldon will give his ruling in writing at a later date.
