The UK government’s handling of post-Brexit residency rights for EU citizens is facing a High Court challenge after nearly 1,500 people were told that their permission to remain in Britain had been granted incorrectly. The legal action, brought by campaign organisation the3million, questions whether the Home Office can allow existing residency rights to expire or restrict family reunification without providing the legal protections required under the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
The3million confirmed on 7 November 2026 that it had lodged judicial review proceedings at the High Court on 6 November. The organisation is challenging the Home Office’s policy of treating previously approved applications under the EU Settlement Scheme as grants made in error. It argues that the approach could leave people facing the loss of residency rights without a formal decision, an individual assessment of their circumstances or an effective opportunity to appeal.
Figures provided by the government in response to a parliamentary question show that 1,473 individuals had been informed that their pre-settled status was granted incorrectly between the introduction of the EU Settlement Scheme in 2018 and 30 June 2026. The figures were disclosed by Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint on 24 September 2026. The government noted that the data came from manual records and could be revised.
The EU Settlement Scheme was introduced following Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. It was designed to protect the residency rights of EU, European Economic Area and Swiss citizens, as well as eligible family members, who were living in the UK before the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020.
Under the scheme, eligible people who had not yet completed five years of continuous residence could receive pre-settled status. This allowed them to remain in Britain while building up the residence required to qualify for settled status, which provides a permanent right to live in the country.
The current dispute centres on what happens when the Home Office later decides that an individual’s original approval was a mistake. The3million argues that the department’s approach allows pre-settled status to expire without an appealable decision. It also challenges restrictions on settled status holders who are told they cannot sponsor eligible family members to join them in Britain.
The organisation maintains that these decisions should be subject to the safeguards set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, including an assessment of each person’s circumstances, consideration of whether the consequences are proportionate and access to an effective appeals process.
However, the Home Office has defended its approach. In its September response to Parliament, the government said that people identified as having received pre-settled status incorrectly are given an opportunity to submit evidence demonstrating their eligibility. It also stated that their existing status is not immediately cancelled. Instead, pre-settled status remains valid until its expiry date, although it will not be extended beyond that point.
The government further explained that affected individuals can submit a fresh application to the EU Settlement Scheme if they disagree with the decision. If that application is refused, they can appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Where an application is submitted before their existing pre-settled status expires, that status remains valid while the application and any subsequent appeal are being considered. The Home Office considers these arrangements consistent with the UK’s obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether the Home Office can correct an immigration decision. It concerns whether the procedures currently used provide sufficient legal protection when people who have already received official permission to live in Britain are later told that they were never entitled to it.
The case also involves people whose eligibility was questioned because of the evidence they originally submitted. Among those affected are Brazilian nationals who acquired Italian citizenship through ancestry, a process known as jure sanguinis. Under the principle of citizenship by descent, people may be recognised as Italian citizens from birth through an eligible Italian parent, even if they were born outside Italy.
Some applicants had received British residency status as Italian citizens but did not possess Italian passports when they originally applied. The Home Office subsequently questioned whether they had been Italian citizens at the relevant time, creating uncertainty over the validity of their EU Settlement Scheme approvals.
One case reported by The Guardian involved a 33-year-old Brazilian-Italian engineer who had been living in London since 2018. His wife’s right to reside in Britain was affected by the Home Office’s interpretation of his Italian citizenship. The department later reversed its decision following objections.
In October 2026, the Home Office accepted that people who could demonstrate that they had acquired Italian citizenship through ancestry should be recognised as Italian citizens from birth. The development addressed an important part of the dispute, although the wider challenge concerning the treatment of people whose status has been declared incorrectly remains unresolved.
For the3million, the cases involving Italian citizenship illustrate the risks of reassessing applications years after they were approved, particularly where immigration officials originally had discretion to accept different forms of evidence. The organisation argues that people should not face the loss of rights because a later caseworker interprets the original evidence differently, without first having a meaningful opportunity to challenge that assessment.
The legal action follows an earlier dispute over the government’s implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. In December 2022, the High Court ruled against Home Office rules that required EU citizens with pre-settled status to submit further applications to avoid losing their residency rights. The case was brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority, with support from the3million, and concerned the potential loss of rights including the ability to work, rent property and remain in Britain.
In the latest proceedings, the3million is asking the High Court to declare the Home Office’s current policy unlawful and require changes to the immigration guidance governing cases where pre-settled status is considered to have been granted in error. The organisation’s challenge puts the government’s handling of post-Brexit residency decisions under renewed legal scrutiny, with the court now being asked to consider whether the safeguards available to affected individuals meet the UK’s obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement.
