The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on 4 March 2026 on late judicial review and appeal filings, and on refusals under paragraph 9.4.1(c) for offences causing serious harm.
Arpitkumar Ashwinkumar Barot & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 218, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), judgment of 4 March 2026, Lewis LJ giving the judgment, with Baker LJ and Zacaroli LJ. The appeal was from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
The first appellant, an Indian national who entered the UK as a student in 2022, applied on 9 November 2023 for leave to remain as a graduate student. The Home Office refused the application on 4 January 2024 under paragraph GR 2.1 and paragraph 9.4.1(c) of Part 9 of the Immigration Rules. The ground was a January 2023 conviction for arranging or facilitating a child sex offence, for which he received a 17-month sentence suspended for two years. An administrative review maintained the refusal on 22 February 2024.
The judicial review application was filed on 29 May 2024. The deadline under Rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 was 22 May 2024. The Upper Tribunal refused to extend time on 31 January 2025. It found a serious and significant breach and no good reason for the delay. It also said the case was arguable but not particularly strong. The appellants did not challenge the first two findings.
Their appellant's notice was due by 7 February 2025 under CPR 52.9(3)(a), seven days after the hearing. It was filed on 10 February 2025.
The judgment sets out how the court approaches extensions of time. It applies the three-stage approach in Hysaj [2014] EWCA Civ 1633 to the late appellant's notice and to the late judicial review claim. The stages are the seriousness of the failure, the reasons for it, and all the circumstances. The court said the distinction the appellants drew between working days and weekends is not found in the CPR. It also said that the absence of particular prejudice to others is unlikely, of itself, to justify granting an extension.
On "serious harm", the court noted that harm can be to society and not only to an individual. It cited Mahmood [2020] EWCA Civ 717 at paragraph 41, which concerned the definition of foreign national criminals in section 117D(2)(ii) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. It also cited government guidance on paragraph 9.4.1(c). That guidance says an offence that has caused serious harm includes one that "has contributed to a widespread problem that causes serious harm to a community or to society generally".
This report covers the court's reasoning as far as paragraph 40 of the judgment. It does not report the court's final conclusion on the applications and the appeal.
What this means for applicants
In this case the court described a filing three days beyond a seven-day limit as a serious and significant failure, and found no good reason for the delay on the evidence given. The government guidance on paragraph 9.4.1(c), as quoted in the judgment, covers harm to a community or to society generally, not only harm to a victim.
Related guide: UK visa judicial review process