Emilio Branco-Bonfim, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1421
Elisangela Batista Dias, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
11 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 913
Court of Appeal
A housekeeper from Brazil came to the UK to care for her boss but didn't have the right visa. She was sent back to Brazil. Even though her lawyers tried to stop it, the court decided she wasn't allowed in because she was essentially working, and the government's rules about letting people stay were followed properly.
Key Facts
- •Elisangela Batista Dias, a Brazilian national, arrived in the UK to care for her employer, Mr. da Silva, who was undergoing knee surgery.
- •Mr. da Silva employed Ms. Dias as a housekeeper in Brazil and continued to pay her Brazilian salary while she was in the UK.
- •Ms. Dias was refused entry to the UK because she did not have the appropriate visa for working in the UK.
- •Ms. Dias was removed from the UK on the same day she arrived.
- •Legal representatives attempted to prevent Ms. Dias's removal by contacting the Home Office and making an application to the court, but these attempts were unsuccessful.
- •Ms. Dias challenged the refusal of entry and the Home Office's failure to defer her removal.
Legal Principles
Visitors to the UK cannot work unless expressly permitted.
Appendix 5 to the Immigration Rules
Overseas domestic workers require entry clearance in advance and must meet specific requirements, including proof of minimum wage payment.
Appendix covering overseas domestic workers (Immigration Rules)
Home Office policy generally defers removal if a written threat of judicial review is received less than seven days before removal.
General Instructions on Judicial Review and Injunctions, version 21, page 28
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on all grounds.
The court found that Ms. Dias intended to work in the UK, despite her and Mr. da Silva's statements to the contrary; the court further found that the Home Office acted reasonably as it was not required to deviate from its policy in this circumstance.
Permission to apply for judicial review refused at the High Court.
The High Court judge found that Ms. Dias was not entitled to enter the UK as a visitor and that she was liable to removal regardless of whether the Home Office adhered to its policy. The point of deferring removal was academic.
Similar Cases
Tanjina Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer
[2024] EWCA Civ 248
PA & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2476 (Admin)
Jeanell Hippolyte v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2968 (Admin)
Mary Jane Baluden Oceana, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
[2023] EWHC 791 (Admin)