Immigration rules: extending domestic violence protection to refugees

Challenge to immigration rules and the domestic violence concession.

The wife of a refugee arrived in the UK under the family reunion scheme and was granted four years’ leave to remain. Domestic violence forced her to leave her husband. Had she stayed in the relationship she would have been eligible for indefinite leave to remain after the four years. She applied for refugee status in her own right but was refused and instead given three years’ discretionary leave to remain. She later applied for indefinite leave to remain. This was also refused because immigration rules say that to be eligible as a spouse you must still be in that relationship. Had she entered the UK as the spouse of a British Citizen or someone with settled immigration status, she would have been eligible to apply for leave to remain under the domestic violence concession.

Ensuring that equality and human rights laws are upheld in institutions is a priority for us. We were concerned the Home Office’s domestic violence concession amounted to sex discrimination because it has a disproportionate impact on women as the primary victims of domestic violence. We wanted to see the concession extended to offer greater protection to the partners of refugees.  

We intervened in the case in the Inner House of the Court of Session, which is when we provide expert advice on the issues that the court is considering. We said that eligibility for indefinite leave to remain must not compel domestic violence victims to stay in their relationship. We also highlighted that female refugees are disproportionately affected by domestic violence, and argued that the discrimination in the rules was unlawful.

The court agreed the immigration rules amounted to sex discrimination. The decision to refuse the woman’s indefinite leave to remain was quashed. Following this judgment the Home Office changed the immigration rules so that partners of refugees are now eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

This case means that refugees’ partners now have the same rights as those married to people with settled immigration status. As the primary victims of domestic violence, the case enhances protection for women and serves as a reminder to institutions that policies related to domestic violence disproportionately affect women.