Home Office Withdraws Asylum Refusal Following Legal Challenge (18 August 2026)

A Somali asylum seeker who fled persecution by Al-Shabaab after assisting foreign aid workers has had his case reopened after Duncan Lewis Solicitors successfully challenged a Home Office refusal issued only hours after his final asylum interview.

The challenge focused on the Home Office's failure to allow the client the period for post-interview representations that had previously been agreed in writing. Following legal representations and the prospect of judicial review proceedings, the Home Office withdrew its refusal and, after reconsidering the claim and supporting evidence, granted the client refugee status.

Background

The client arrived in the United Kingdom seeking international protection after fleeing persecution in Somalia. As the member of a minority clan, he had experienced long-standing social marginalisation.

His circumstances escalated after he agreed to assist an international humanitarian organisation delivering community education on the dangers of early marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM).

As a result of his association with international aid workers, the client was targeted and abducted by Al-Shabaab. During his detention, he was physical assaulted and threatened with execution if he refused to join the organisation’s forces.

Following a military clash near the detention facility, the client was able to escape. Without the protection afforded by a powerful clan network, he remained at serious risk of reprisals and ultimately fled Somalia.

His journey to the United Kingdom involved travelling through North Africa, where he experienced forced labour and abuse at the hands of human traffickers.

A Premature Refusal

Given the client’s past trauma and the complexity of his claim, additional time was requested from the Home Office to prepare detailed post-interview representations and supporting evidence.

The Home Office agreed to the extension in writing. Its correspondence confirmed that post-interview representations could be submitted until 18 June 2026, or within 10 working days of the client's second asylum interview, whichever was earlier.

The client was subsequently scheduled to attend his second asylum interview on 24 June 2026. On that basis, the period for post-interview representations would run for 10 working days following the interview, giving a deadline of 7 July 2026.

This left insufficient time to review the lengthy interview record with the client, identify and address any transcription or factual errors, obtain further instructions and submit the supporting evidence and representations that had been contemplated by the earlier agreement.

The timing of the refusal therefore became a central issue in the subsequent legal challenge.

Challenging the Home Office Decision

Duncan Lewis Solicitors took two parallel steps to protect the client's position.

First, an appeal was lodged with the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), preserving the client's statutory right of appeal.

Second, a pre-action protocol letter was sent to the Home Office setting out the proposed grounds for judicial review of the refusal decision.

The proposed challenge included arguments concerning:

• Failure to follow published guidance: The representations relied, among other authorities, on Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59, which confirms the importance of public authorities following their published policies unless there is a lawful basis for departing from them.

• Legitimate Expectation: The Home Office had confirmed in writing that post-interview representations could be submitted within the agreed timeframe. The refusal before that period had expired gave rise to an issue as to whether the client's legitimate expectation had been frustrated.

• Procedural Fairness & Anxious Scrutiny: The client had been denied a meaningful opportunity to consider the second interview record and provide representations and evidence before the decision was made. The particular importance of procedural fairness in asylum cases, where decisions may have potentially life-threatening consequences, was also relied upon.

The Home Office's Response

Initially, the Home Office maintained that the refusal was lawful. It argued that the deadline for representations had expired before the second interview and that judicial review was inappropriate because the client had a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Further legal representations were submitted in response.

Those representations highlighted the practical and logical difficulty with the Home Office's position: a deadline for post-interview representations could not meaningfully require those representations to be submitted before the interview itself had taken place.

The representations also explained that the proposed judicial review challenge concerned the lawfulness of the decision-making process, rather than simply the merits of the asylum claim. While the First-tier Tribunal provides a statutory route for challenging an asylum refusal, it does not necessarily provide a remedy for every public law challenge concerning the way in which a decision was made.

Following these further representations, the Home Office agreed to review the decision.

Outcome

Following the legal representations and the prospect of judicial review proceedings in the High Court, the Home Office conducted an internal review of the refusal.

The Secretary of State subsequently withdrew the refusal decision and reconsidered the asylum claim in light of the evidence and representations.

The client was ultimately granted refugee status with 30 months' permission to stay.

The outcome demonstrates the importance of ensuring that asylum decisions are reached through a lawful and procedurally fair process, particularly where an applicant has been given a defined opportunity to provide further evidence and representations.

It also highlights the role of judicial review in holding public authorities to their legal and procedural obligations where an administrative decision is alleged to have been reached unlawfully.

This case study was prepared by Immigration Caseworker, Navya Kiran Mallepoola.

About Duncan Lewis

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is a leading national law firm with extensive experience in immigration and asylum law. Its specialist lawyers represent clients in complex appeals and challenges to Home Office decisions, including cases involving persecution, detention and procedural unfairness.

The firm's immigration and public law teams regularly act in cases requiring urgent legal intervention to safeguard clients' rights and ensure that decisions are made lawfully, fairly and in accordance with applicable policies and procedures.