High court: no duty to evacuate Gaza families - but ministers must decide individually

Zakaria is a Palestinian living in Glasgow, who we have been supporting. He has recognised refugee status in the United Kingdom because this country accepted that he could not safely return to Gaza. His wife and children are still there, despite beginning the family reunion process almost a year ago.

They applied to join him under the family reunion rules. After months of requesting a biometric deferral, hundreds of pages of evidence and every identity document beign in order, the Home Office assessed their applications and issued positive predeterminations to his wife and youngest son. That means the department has already concluded that, if they enrol biometrics and no adverse information is identified, visas will be granted. We asked the Foreign Office to evacuate mother and youngest son. but then things got complicated. In principle, they qualify. In practice, they cannot leave.

Zakaria’s older teenage sons were refused because they were 18 and 19 at the time of application. Yet they remain dependent on their parents and continue to live as one family unit with their mother in Gaza.

To enrol biometrics, the family must exit Gaza. Israel will not permit departure without confirmation of onward travel. Jordan will not admit them for transit without a guarantee from the British government that they will travel onwards and not remain. The UK does not provide that guarantee for families in this category.

So families who have already been told they qualify remain trapped because two government departments will not align their policies.

Today, the High Court handed down its decision on this wider issue. The court confirmed that there is no automatic legal duty requiring the UK to evacuate families from Gaza. Article 8 does not compel diplomatic or consular extraction. The court did not overturn the final refusal in that case.

But the judge, Mr Justice Sheldon, also found that ministers (the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper) had acted unlawfully when they treated Gaza families as a cohort rather than considering them individually. The court identified unlawful delay in handling onward travel issues and failures to communicate key decisions properly. The ruling does not force ministers to grant onward travel guarantees. It does require them to decide lawfully and on an individual basis.

Zakaria’s family is not a cohort. It is a wife and children whose applications have already been assessed and conditionally approved. The obstacle is not identity. It is not security. It is not paperwork. It is the refusal to provide the guarantee that would unlock transit.

Predeterminations are time-limited. Zakaria’s wife and youngest son must enrol biometrics before the end of March. If they cannot, the conditional approval lapses.

That does not permanently bar them from reapplying. But it does mean starting again under the rules in force at the time of a fresh application. The family reunion framework has changed. Financial requirements may now apply. Zakaria is not in employment; he receives Personal Independence Payment as a survivor of torture. A new application could therefore be assessed under a materially less favourable regime.

In other words, a family that has already been found eligible in principle could lose that position because the state refuses to facilitate the only available route to complete biometrics.

Internal material disclosed in the litigation makes clear that ministers retain discretion to consider cases individually.

For Zakaria, this is not a question of policy coherence. It is whether his family can leave before the window closes.

When he was told that his wife and youngest son had been conditionally approved but could not exit to complete biometrics, he asked:

“My children are trapped in this war. I’m their father. Should I send them shrouds?”

He is still waiting for an answer.