Duncan Lewis Secures Judicial Review in Urgent US Removal Case Involving Vulnerable Client (20 March 2026)

Duncan Lewis Solicitors has successfully secured permission to proceed with judicial review in a high-stakes removal case involving a vulnerable individual with a serious conviction facing deportation to the United States. The case raises significant issues regarding the treatment of mental health evidence, the legal effect of section 48 transfers, and the proper assessment of further submissions in human rights claims.

Background

The case began when the client accessed legal advice through a remote Detained Duty Advice Scheme surgery at an Immigration Removal Centre. The client was identified as highly vulnerable, with complex and deteriorating mental health needs.

In September 2025, a Consultant Psychiatrist certified the need to transfer the client’s care under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Such a transfer would have acted as a legal barrier to removal. However, the process was discontinued the following month without explanation and without obtaining updated psychiatric evidence, following which removal directions to the United States were set by the SSHD for December 2025.

 Urgent Intervention and Interim Relief

Duncan Lewis Solicitors acted swiftly to challenge the proposed removal. Pre-action correspondence highlighted:

• The significance of the abandoned section 48 process
• Ongoing efforts to obtain a medico-legal psychiatric report
• Evidence of the client’s deteriorating mental health
• A Country Expert report demonstrating the real risk of homelessness and if the client would be able to access appropriate medical care in the United States

The SSHD maintained removal directions and refused to treat the further submissions as a fresh claim.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors then successfully obtained out-of-hours interim relief, preventing the client’s removal. This relief was granted on the basis that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the client’s mental health, underscoring the gravity of the case.

Notably, this outcome was achieved in the context of a proposed removal to the United States—a country not typically associated with successful human rights-based removal challenges.

Judicial Review Proceedings

Following the grant of interim relief, Brenda Efurhievwe was instructed to draft the Statement of Facts and Grounds and represent the client in judicial review proceedings.

Although permission was initially refused on the papers, the case was successfully renewed at an oral hearing. At the hearing, detailed submissions highlighted several critical failings in the SSHD’s decision-making:

• Unexplained discontinuation of the section 48 Mental Health Act process
• Failure to treat this as a statutory barrier to removal
• Inadequate engagement with medical and country expert evidence
• Errors in concluding that the further submissions did not amount to a fresh claim

It was argued that these failings amounted to a breach of the duty of “anxious scrutiny” (the heightened level of care required in human rights cases), as well as a “Tameside error”, meaning a failure to properly investigate relevant facts.

Outcome

Upper Tribunal Judge Neville granted permission to apply for judicial review on all grounds.

The Tribunal found it arguable that:

• The SSHD failed to properly consider the significance of the section 48 process
• The further submissions were not assessed with the required level of scrutiny
• The client had a realistic prospect of success in a human rights appeal

The Judge also noted that general assertions about healthcare availability in the United States were insufficient to address the detailed risks identified in the Country Expert evidence.

Significance of the Case

This case highlights several important points:

• The critical importance of properly assessing mental health evidence in detention and removal decisions
• The potential for section 48 Mental Health Act transfers to operate as a barrier to removal
• The need for rigorous and lawful consideration of further submissions under paragraph 353
• The possibility of successfully challenging removal decisions even where the destination country is the United States

It also demonstrates Duncan Lewis Solicitors’ expertise in handling urgent, high-stakes judicial review litigation, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals and complex medical evidence.

Representation

The client was represented by Darren Middleton and Anna Somo of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, with Counsel Brenda Efurhievwe of Goldsmith Chambers.

About the Team

Darren Middleton is a Director in the Immigration department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. He specialises in complex asylum, immigration, and public law matters, with a focus on representing vulnerable clients. Darren has extensive experience in Judicial Review proceedings and is accredited as a Supervising Senior Caseworker under the Immigration and Asylum Law Accreditation Scheme.

Anna Somo is a Caseworker in the Immigration and Public Law department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, based in the Birmingham office. She works under the supervision of Darren Middleton, assisting on a wide range of immigration, asylum and human rights matters.

If you require specialist support from our Immigration and Public Law team, call Duncan Lewis on 033 3772 0409