Home Office challenged in Court of Session over failure to enable Palestinian refugee family to leave Gaza

Positive Action in Housing was at Scotland’s Court of Session on Thursday 29 October to support our client, Zakaria, a recognised Palestinian refugee living in Scotland who is fighting to bring his wife and three sons to safety from Gaza.

His two older sons were refused permission to join him in the UK, their refusals are being appealed by a different Scottish lawyer. Zakaria's wife and youngest son received favourable family reunion predeterminations on 9 October 2025, subject to biometric enrolment and final security checks. Yet they remain trapped in Gaza, unable to reach the visa application centre where those checks must take place.

Zakaria is represented in the current Court of Session proceedings by Euan MacKay of McGlashan MacKay Solicitors, with Aidan O’Neill KC and Bilal Shabbir KC presenting the central legal arguments.

On the second day of submissions before Lord Renucci, the Home Office acknowledged that the Foreign Office cannot practically help the mother and youngest son reach Jordan without a UK "onward travel assurance".

The Foreign Secretary had already decided in June 2026 to provide "exceptional consular assistance" for their departure from Gaza. But the Home Office has yet to provide the assurance required by Jordan to allow them to travel through the country and complete their biometric checks.

Aidan O’Neill KC challenged the Government’s interpretation of that decision, arguing that the UK Government cannot meaningfully commit to helping this family leave Gaza while maintaining that it has not decided whether to provide the only available means of doing so.

A Government commitment under scrutiny

The Home Office argued that granting consular assistance and providing onward travel assurance are separate decisions, involving different responsibilities and security considerations.

Mr O’Neill challenged that distinction. He argued that the UK Government is one legal decision-maker for these purposes and that the Foreign Secretary’s decision must be interpreted as a meaningful commitment in the circumstances in which it was made.

On the Home Office’s interpretation, the Government had agreed to help the family leave Gaza through Jordan but had not decided whether to provide what was necessary to make that assistance possible.

Mr O’Neill argued that this made the Government’s interpretation of its own June letter internally contradictory.

Lord Renucci explored the point, while also asking whether consular assistance and onward travel assurance could be different stages of one overall decision-making process.

Challenging the Government’s evidence

Mr O’Neill also questioned the Government’s account of its own decision-making arrangements.

In earlier proceedings before Lord Braid, the Government had described a coordinated approach between the Foreign Office and Home Office, which was relevant to its explanation for delays.

However, the June correspondence showed that the Foreign Secretary made the assistance decision and subsequently asked the Home Office to consider onward travel assurance.

Mr O’Neill challenged the evidential basis for this apparent departure from the process previously described to the court.

The Home Office maintained that the difference in procedure did not determine whether an onward travel assurance was legally required. The court made no finding that the Government had misled earlier proceedings.

Security checks and the biometric deadlock

The Home Office argued that an onward travel assurance could effectively commit Britain to receiving the family even if biometric checks in Jordan subsequently identified security concerns.

Lord Renucci pressed Mr O’Neill on that consequence, observing that the assurance would carry practical obligations beyond simply reaching a biometric centre.

Mr O’Neill distinguished the assurance to Jordan from a final immigration decision, while acknowledging that onward travel to Britain would be the foreseeable outcome.

He also highlighted the central obstacle: the family cannot complete biometric checks without reaching Jordan, but cannot reach Jordan without an assurance from the Government requiring those checks.

The petitioners are not asking for security checks to be abandoned. Their case concerns whether the Government’s existing decision to provide exceptional assistance obliges it to make that assistance effective.

A wider problem facing Palestinian families

In December 2024, the Home Office confirmed that it had granted 143 predetermination requests and five biometric-excusal requests to Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023.

These figures do not establish how many people subsequently completed biometrics, obtained final visas or reached Britain.

The Home Office’s published family migration statistics count applications only after biometrics have been taken. Families unable to reach a biometric centre may therefore be missing from published application totals.

Positive Action in Housing’s internal  casework review identified 79 family-reunion-related records, representing approximately 64 distinct sponsors or households, alongside reports of at least 65 killed relatives across approximately 14 cases. These are our reported casework figures, not independently verified mortality statistics or findings that immigration delays caused those deaths.

“A promise of assistance must mean something”

Robina Qureshi, Chief Executive of Positive Action in Housing, said:

“Mr O’Neill KC exposed the contradiction at the heart of this case. The Government has agreed to help a mother and child leave Gaza, but has not provided the assurance without which they cannot reach Jordan.

“Zakaria is a recognised refugee in Scotland. His two older sons are appealing refusals, while his wife and youngest son remain trapped despite favourable preliminary decisions.

“Nobody is asking for national security checks to be abandoned. After all, we should not forget that the then Home orderchanged the rules to allow thousands of Ukrainians to enter the UK and submit biometrics after arrival. We are sinply asking for a safe, workable way for this mother and child to complete them.

“A Government decision to offer humanitarian assistance must have practical meaning. Otherwise, the family pays the price.”

What happens next?

Lord Renucci has not yet ruled on whether the Home Secretary is legally obliged to provide an onward travel assurance. The Home Office’s decision on that assurance remains outstanding.

A further hearing is arranged for 12 November 2026 to address evidence and possible cross-examination, with substantive proceedings due to continue on 27 November 2026.

For Zakaria and his family, the position remains unchanged: a favourable preliminary family reunion decision, a Government commitment to provide exceptional assistance, and no workable route out of Gaza.

Sources

Earlier Court of Session judgment, A and B, Petitioners [2026] CSOH 41:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/tgbbrv1w/2026csoh41-a-and-b-for-judicial-review.pdfs

Home Office parliamentary answer, December 2024:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-11-22/15676

Home Office family immigration statistics, August 2026:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2026/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-family

Positive Action in Housing casework review, July 2026.