The Upper Tribunal has ruled that the Home Office acted irrationally and breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to consider visa applications by two Palestinian families in Gaza before they provided biometrics. The judgment comes from the joined cases HA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR-2026-LON-002050.

The decision matters to practitioners handling family visa and human rights claims. It targets the "unsafe journeys" policy, under which caseworkers declined to engage with applications until applicants gave biometrics. For applicants in an active war zone, that precondition was often impossible to meet.

What does the ruling change?

The Tribunal found two failures in the Home Office approach:

• Refusing to consider the applications before biometrics were given was irrational on public law grounds.
• The refusal breached the families' rights under Article 8 ECHR, which protects family life.

In practical terms, the Home Office must now reconsider these applications. The cases involved two Palestinian families trapped in Gaza who could not complete the standard biometrics step.

For advisers, the takeaway is simple: a biometrics precondition cannot be applied mechanically where the applicant cannot safely comply.

Who is affected?

The immediate parties are the two Palestinian families in Gaza whose applications were refused. The wider group is any applicant whose claim was failed under the unsafe journeys policy on the same basis — refusal before biometrics, without substantive consideration.

Practitioners should review client files where:

• the application was refused for failure to give biometrics;
• the applicant was in Gaza or another conflict zone;
• no substantive Article 8 assessment was carried out.

The Home Office must now reconsider the applications at issue on a proper basis.

Why practitioners should track the case citation

The case reference is JR-2026-LON-002050, heard in the Upper Tribunal as joined claims. It is now a direct authority against refusing to consider applications solely because biometrics are outstanding in war-zone conditions.

Advisers can cite it when pressing the Home Office to engage substantively with claims from applicants who cannot safely travel to enrol biometrics.

The takeaway in plain words: a rule that demands the impossible is not a lawful basis for refusal.

Read the full Upper Tribunal judgment for the precise reasoning before relying on it in any individual case, and check the Home Office response for any policy changes that follow.