Sonia L

@sonial77

Immigration lawyer about town. Migrant. Queer. She/her. Substack:

150 Folgt2.504 Follower1.347 Posts

Bluesky

gamer

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir sonial77.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Sonia L@sonial77· 20d

And this...

Sonia L@sonial77· 26d

Still very toasty, but bearable. Perfect freelance day - went for a run, then to the shops, then bit of writing and finally a book and a beer in the garden.

Bit of my garden, yellow roses on the left, some orange lily things middle centre bottom, bit of lavender on the right. Large dark yellow parasol blocking out most of the blue sky and also reflected in the bedroom window behind it.

Sonia L@sonial77· 26d

I don't think I am unusually close to my sibling or cousins, but I can't even try to imagine them in that situation without becoming upset. All of these cases are because of the government's failure to help British citizens get their family members to safety.

11. The judge found the Sponsor to be a credible witness and that the Sponsor suffers from severe depression and experiences trauma-related symptoms. The judge accepted that “a significant cause of the Sponsor’s trauma symptoms is her separation from her family members in Gaza and the knowledge of the circumstances they are facing” and that “if the Sponsor were to access medication and/or therapeutic treatment it would not be likely to improve her symptoms while her family remain in their current circumstances.” [Annex at 7 and 34]
12. In respect of the Sponsor’s children, the judge found as follows. The Sponsor’s daughter had been referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) after her mental health deteriorated and she began self-harming. The Sponsor’s younger son had been significantly affected by the situation faced by the Applicants in Gaza; his behaviour changed markedly and he was ultimately permanently excluded from school. The Sponsor’s older son, who had previously been in the top set for all subjects, moved to a less demanding foundation course prior to sitting his GCSEs. As a result, he was no longer able to pursue A-levels as previously planned. The judge concluded that the (or a) cause of these difficulties was the Applicants’ situation in Gaza. [Annex at 35-46]

Sonia L@sonial77· 26d

fml

They suggested Wes Streeting, the former health secretary who quit over Keir Starmer’s leadership, could take over from Mahmood as home secretary. Although he is seen as being on the right of the Labour party and is tough on crime, he is softer than her on immigration.

Sonia L@sonial77· 28d

wtaf

Brian Mathew
(Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Sharethis specific contribution
I wonder whether my hon. Friend and the Minister, in their efforts to prevent modern slavery, might consider asylum seekers being be allowed to work, so that they can pay their way, but being fitted with ankle tags until their status is decided.

Sonia L@sonial77· 28d

Good to see one MP calling this out at least hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026...

Unfortunately, when we come to this place, which is meant to be a place of evidence-based policymaking and exchanges that try to find a degree of common ground, at times it feels as though we are just parroting the social media posts that I see every morning when I dare to open X or Facebook. We need to be better than that.

Sonia L@sonial77· 29d

Gross: "No.10 did not rule out making it harder for Pakistanis to obtain U.K. visas as a bargaining chip."

The grid click-through detail: First, Mahmood will confirm the government will use the bill to overturn the 1970s law preventing Rochdale grooming gangs ringleader Shabir Ahmed from being deported. The rule barring the removal of Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the U.K. before 1973 will be scrapped — but Ahmed still cannot be deported without Pakistan (or another nation) accepting him.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jul 10

Here we go again - this time it's the CPS using AI generated fake cases and then not actually checking the output properly "The episode highlights the risks of its use without appropriate oversight particularly for legal research." www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWH...

Postcript

Prior to the hearing of the hearing appeal an issue arose concerning the accuracy of certain authorities cited in the Respondents' written submissions.

In grounds of opposition prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS") dated 3 June 2025, reliance was placed on a number of authorities said to demonstrate the continued application of the reasoning in Pilecki. Those authorities included cases cited as: Vlad v Romania [2017] EWHC 2060 (Admin) and Jeziorski v Poland [2019] EWHC 3885 (Admin). Neither of these authorities exists.

The same erroneous material had also been carried forward into a further document in the appeal, prepared by junior counsel dated 12 June 2025 headed "Respondent Submissions", such that the non-existent authorities were relied upon in more than one document before the Court. The error was not identified at the permission stage, notwithstanding that the relevant submissions had been before the Court at that point. The erroneous citations were not relied upon in the Respondents' skeleton argument dated 2 February 2026, settled by junior and leading counsel. Equally, the Respondents' skeleton did not explain (as is clear now, see below) that the false citations had by then been identified by those acting for the Respondents.

Initially, it appeared that the error was not identified by the Respondent or its legal representatives, but by those acting for the Appellants, who were unable to locate the cases despite searches of the usual legal databases. The matter was therefore raised with the CPS, first by email on 3 February 2026, and then by letter dated 5 February 2026 and brought to the attention of the Court.

The CPS responded the following day, acknowledging the error. An apology was offered, and it was made clear that there had been no intention to mislead the Court. The CPS indicated that enquiries were being undertaken into the circumstances in which the citations came to be included in the submissions. Leading and junior counsel for the Respondents provided a Note to the Court dated 9 February 2026 which stated that the two cases did not exist and that the Respondents regretted and apologised for the fact that the erroneous citations were placed before the court in the documents dated 3 and 12 June 2025 and that they had not been included in bad faith. The Note stated that an investigation was underway into the circumstances in which the citations came to be included in the two documents and that the matter was being considered at senior levels of the CPS. A fuller explanation was subsequently provided in a letter from the Chief Crown Prosecutor dated 3 March 2026, which proceeded on the basis that the error was not identified by counsel instructed until it was raised by the Appellants.

In its letter, dated 3 March 2026, the CPS accepted that the citations were inaccurate and explained that they were likely to have originated from the use of artificial intelligence. However, the CPS identified the critical failing as the fact that the reviewing lawyer did not properly check the accuracy of the document before it was filed and served.

The position of the CPS was therefore that, while the immediate source of the error may have been the use of generative artificial intelligence, the operative cause was human error in the failure to verify the authorities relied upon in formal submissions placed before the Court. The CPS emphasised that this was not a deliberate attempt to mislead, but rather an isolated incident arising from inadequate checking of written work.

The CPS indicated that, once the issue came to light, it had undertaken a series of steps.

i) First, a full internal review was initiated in order to establish how the error had occurred.

ii) Secondly, in order to assess whether the issue was confined to this case, senior managers reviewed a substantial number of other cases (78 in total) conducted by the same lawyer. That review did not identify similar issues, and the lawyer's work was otherwise assessed to be of a good standard.

iii) Thirdly, the CPS used the incident as an opportunity to reinforce professional obligations within the Extradition Unit. In particular, lawyers were reminded of their duty, as officers of the court, to ensure the accuracy of written submissions. Internal processes were also reviewed, and the learning points arising from the incident were disseminated more widely across the organisation.

iv) Finally, the CPS indicated that the matter would be raised with instructed counsel, noting that the error had not been identified prior to being drawn to its attention by the Appellants. (In fact, and as below, this subsequently proved to be incorrect: the error had already been identified by junior counsel.)

The CPS concluded that, in light of these steps, the risk of recurrence was low.

In summary therefore, at the outset of the appeal hearing the Court was faced with a situation in which non-existent authorities had been cited in formal submissions on behalf of the Respondent. The error appeared not to have been identified by those responsible for preparing or reviewing the submissions, nor by counsel, but was instead brought to light by the opposing party. The CPS had explained the matter as arising from the use of artificial intelligence combined with a failure of proper verification, and has taken steps internally to investigate, review and mitigate the risk of repetition.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 30

It's been a long day but that screenshot doesn't look right to me, it seems to be saying that the HRA is being amended? This is what the bill says, it is amending the NIAA 2002.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 30

Court of Appeal next, I would guess

Paragraph34.The fact that an applicant for citizenship entered the United Kingdom illegally is something that the Secretary of State can treat as indicating that the person is not of good character. Such conduct or behaviour may indicate a willingness to break or disregard the law. Similarly, arrival without an entry clearance and having made a dangerous journey, for example arriving by small boat or concealed in a vehicle, demonstrates a willingness to make dangerous journeys and to use criminal gangs to make arrangements for a person to travel to the United Kingdom. The standard of behaviour or conduct that is to be expected of persons seeking citizenship is a matter for the Secretary of State. She is entitled to take into account the fact that a person entered the United Kingdom illegally or arrived without the necessary entry clearance and having made a dangerous journey. She is entitled to take the view that, normally, such behaviour does demonstrate that that the person lacks good character.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 29

Then there was UNHCR UK's briefing looking specifically at these proposals. Australia has already tried precisely this move. They failed. Why does Mahmood expect a different outcome here? open.substack.com/pub/thoughts...

Australia, similarly always trying to win the race to the bottom when it comes to treatment of refugees, has already tried the genius move of having appeals heard by people who are not equipped to do so. UNHCR notes:
In Australia, it was widely acknowledged that the recruitment of adjudicators who lacked sufficient legal qualifications or relevant experience contributed to significant delays in the determination of appeals and to the growth of the appeals backlog. These concerns were among the factors that ultimately led the Australian Government to abolish both the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

(AAT). Recent legislation has since established a new federal administrative review tribunal, accompanied by a renewed emphasis on institutional integrity, decision-making quality, and higher recruitment standards for tribunal members. Under the new framework, a person may not be appointed as an adjudicator unless they are enrolled as a legal practitioner with at least five years’ standing, or the Minister is satisfied that they have at least five years of specialised training or experience in a subject matter relevant to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The red mist descended a bit when I got to the bit about training, again as I remember yesterday’s report and how abysmal the training is for asylum decision makers. Why should we expect that this will be any better? It will still be the Home Office. Anyway,

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 29

I can't emphasise enough how bad this proposal is. Last week alone there were two reports out which highlight what a bad idea it is. First was the ICIBI report on asylum casework which noted a drop in quality of decisions when recruitment standards were lowered: open.substack.com/pub/thoughts...

Public to decide asylum cases as Mahmood pledges to speed up decisions
The Home Secretary will set out plans for a new independent body made up of people from a range of backgrounds with training similar to magistrates.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 29

Although a little distressing that they don't seem to be aware that they are actually facing 15 years in total...

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that migrants who have worked in an occupation below RQF level 6 should have their standard qualifying period for settlement set at 15 years?
Occupations skilled to RQF level 6 are those which require a qualification equivalent to degree level or higher. You can read more about what kind of qualifications this includes here.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 27

Home Affairs Committee has written to Alex Norris MP raising concerns that there has been a breach of the Ministerial Code with the announcement of new mass accommodation sites (presumably SSHD will also try to get him sacked). Plus a long list of questions. committees.parliament.uk/committee/83...

26 June 2026Alex Norris MPMinister for Border Security and AsylumHome officeBy emailAsylum accommodationDear MinisterI am writing to you following announcements made last night to the press, regarding the Home Office's use of military sites for asylum accommodation.On the evening of 25 June the Home Office briefed the press on plans to use three more military sites to house asylum seekers – one in Bicester in Oxfordshire, one in Barnham in Suffolk, and one in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. Yesterday morning Members raised the prospect of such an announcement being made without a statement to the House and the Speaker said it would be totally unacceptable if an announcement was made in this way.1. Given the considerable public and parliamentary interest in this matter, and the requirements of the Ministerial Code to make the most important policy announcements to Parliament first, why were these plans announced via the press, and not a statement to the House?2. What steps has the Home Office taken to improve engagement with local elected representatives, stakeholders, and communities, ahead of announcing plans for these sites?3. How much notice were local elected representatives and stakeholders – and inparticular the police – given ahead of this announcement being made to the press?The Home Office previously explored using RAF Linton-on-Ouse for asylumaccommodation, but these plans were cancelled in August 2022 following significant local opposition.House of CommonsPalace of WestminsterLondonSW1A 0AAhomeaffcom@parliam

4. 5. How will you ensure that plans to use RAF Linton-on-Ouse for asylum accommodation are a success, when the Home Office’s previous plans to use the site had to be cancelled?Have any relevant considerations for using this site for asylum accommodationchanged, since the Home Office previously considered using this site?On 9 June 2026 you told us that the Home Office planned to use Crowborough Training Camp for a year, but on 25 June it was widely reported that the government is looking to extend the use of this site until 2030.6. When did the Home Office first consider extending its use of this site beyond twelve months?It has been reported that the Home Office’s plans to use Cameron Barracks in Inverness for asylum accommodation have been cancelled.7. Can you confirm that the Home Office no longer plans to use Cameron Barracks for asylum accommodation, and if so the reasons for this?8. Why did the department’s ‘stage gate process’ not identify HMO licence requirements in Scotland as a barrier to using the site for asylum accommodation?On 9 June you told us that Clearsprings Ready Home had been contracted to run asylum accommodation at Crowborough Training Camp because the site was in the geographical area where they were contracted to provide accommodation.9. Is it your intention to use the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts (AASCs) providers for the relevant geographical region to operate the large sites that have just been announced - rather than running a competitive procurement process?10.Can you confirm whether the Home Office is under any contractual obligation to use providers of the existing AASC for large sites?11.If you do not plan to run a competitive process to find providers for these new sites, what steps is the department taking to ensure that decisions regarding these sites meet the four accounting officer standards of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility?

Four of the five large sites the Government has announced since July 2024 have been in areas with opposition MPs, and non-Labour councils.12.What, if any, consideration does the Government give to achieving political balance in terms of the local authority areas or constituencies in which large sites are located?It is deeply disappointing that despite being questioned in detail on these matters by the Committee earlier this month, you gave no indication of the plans that were announced last night.We would be grateful for a response by Tuesday 7 July.Yours sincerelyRt Hon Dame Karen Bradley MP  Chair of the Home Affairs Committee

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 26

Lunch

A fruit pastille and a raspberry gatorade

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 26

Making legal aid inaccessible wasn't enough to satisfy the government. Now, the last remaining safeguard for refugees against the Home Office is to be removed. open.substack.com/pub/thoughts...

The Home Office’s response to the recommendations is the most meaningless management speak that you can imagine. Because they don’t care. The system is working as they want it to, with a high level of refusals. The fly in the ointment is currently those pesky judges who insist on upholding the law. So the Home Secretary is getting rid of them.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 26

Not that it's a contest, but...

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 26

Lol

Streets away: Despite Team Burnham insisting that the conversation is still live, one person close to the incoming PM tells my colleague Dan Bloom the idea of Wes Streeting as chancellor is for the birds. “He is trying to brief himself into existence,” they add.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 25

Yep :/ publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5902/ld...

20.We do not support the Government’s proposals to extend the baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain to 10 years, to 15 years for those on work visas below RQF 6, and to 20 years for refugees on the core protection route. The Government should instead explore the option of retaining the 5 year baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain, while separating Indefinite Leave to Remain from access to public funds. Migrants with ILR could remain subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds condition until they have resided in the UK for 10 years and/or obtained British citizenship. (Paragraph 113)

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 25

I feel like they are already on the case with unclipping it

Earned citizenship
268. It has been a longstanding principle that citizenship in the UK, like settlement, is a privilege and not a right. We are creating a system that benefits people who respect the rules and make their contribution to the UK and take action against those who do not.

269. In 2024, 269,621 people were granted British citizenship, 30% more than 2023.[footnote 94] We do not want to offer citizenship and the life-long benefits it brings to those who have circumvented our rules or those who have not demonstrated that they have contributed to the UK.

270. We will introduce reforms to citizenship to align to earned settlement reforms, building on the expansion of the Points-Based System to settlement and citizenship.

271. Similar to Earned Settlement, we will increase the standard qualifying period and expand the Points-Based System to allow those with greater contributions to qualify sooner. We will also conduct a refresh of the Life in the UK test and how it operates. Finally, we will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults, who have lived here through their childhood, from accessing British nationality.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 25

From what I've heard about Tapp (nothing good, lots bad), this motivation seems the most likely www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Tapp wrote in an article for the Times it was his “strong belief” that migrant care workers should not have to wait longer to apply for permanent settlement in the UK.

Mahmood was unaware he had written the article, which a source close to her insisted was written “to try to win a job in the new administration”.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 25

Garden is happy at least

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 25

Quick look at the ICIBI's report on asylum casework. A lot of it already known but some new bits I found interesting were - the high nunber of caseworkers on performance management plans - the Home Office's new quality data appears to be inflated in its favour open.substack.com/pub/thoughts...

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 23

Message received from a German friend yesterday:

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 19

Officially the proud owner of my second @roseschmits.bsky.social vase - first tentacled one and I am obsessed!

Small white vase with tentacles, two yellow roses and some purple salvia in the vase. Blue fence behind.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 18

Sounds about right

The UK’s interior ministry disbanded an advisory committee on age assessment days before the AI plans were announced. Two scientists who sat on that committee told us that they had not been consulted about the plans and had grave doubts over the technology. One said he thought the committee had been dissolved in order to prevent them being consulted.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 16

Even the Telegraph's *Arts Correspondent* is evil. Just vile stuff. Forwarded this to our comms person but felt the need to clarify in the subject heading that we were not the ones being targetted (this time), so as not to give her a heart attack. This is how we live now. archive.ph/T9MPT

Exclusive: BBC children’s show ‘influenced by pro-migrant campaigners’
Charity met with producers as part of campaign to change attitudes towards asylum seekers

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 15

Fun side note is that Labour then watered down what the Tory gov had agreed to (www.wilsonllp.co.uk/news/home-se...) before changing position again after legal action (www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/united-ki...)

A statutory inquiry was not set up before the General Election was announced on 23 May 2024. Following the election of the new Labour government in July 2024, the new Home Secretary decided in September 2024 not to establish a statutory inquiry and to instead proceed with a form of non-statutory inquiry.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 15

The inquiry was set up before the 2024 election.

A spokesperson for Jenrick from Reform UK said: “Robert’s written statement will be with the inquiry in due course. It is telling that Labour commissioned an inquiry into the detention of illegal migrants, and not into the daily harm illegal migration is inflicting on the British people.”

The High Court granted permission in December 2023 and an expedited 2-day full hearing was listed in March 2024. Shortly before this hearing, the then Home Secretary agreed to hold a statutory inquiry (under the Inquiries Act 2005) and was granted an 8-week stay to the claim so that steps could be taken to set up the inquiry.

Sonia L@sonial77· Jun 12

But it is apparently fine to remove these "statutory requirements which help to safeguard judicial standards" for asylum appeals, as proposed by the Home Secretary with the new Appeals body (where it seems the intention is to stuff it full of inadequately qualified people)