“4. In accordance with the Biometric enrolment guidance - unsafe journeys (publishing.service.gov.uk) dated21 August 2024 , version 4, a request to pre determine an application or to be excused from the requirement to attend a Visa Application Centre (VAC) to enrol their biometrics will, in most circumstances, only be agreed to where the applicants can demonstrate they meet all 4 criteria as per the published guidance. 5. In respect of your clients’ request for a biometric excusal and based on the evidence provided by your client, I am satisfied with Criterion Two (Unsafe Journey) Criterion Three (Compelling Circumstances). However, I am not satisfied with Criterion One (Identity), and Criterion Four (Travel). 6. In respect of your clients’ request for a pre-determination and based on the evidence provided by your client, I am satisfied with Criterion One (Identity), Criterion Two (Unsafe Journeys), Criterion three (Compelling Circumstances) and Criterion Four (Travel). 7. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks. In submitting an online visa application, you will have recognised there is a requirement to enrol your biometric information as part of the process and must have considered the various options for doing so.”
“16. The Biometric enrolment guidance . . . states that applicants seeking a request to be excused from the requirement to attend a VAC to enrol their biometrics, need to explain how they can travel to the UK, but not to any VAC including any on route to the UK. 17. Within your letter of legal representations dated13 February 2025 , it has been stated that, ‘This will allow the minors to qualify for FCDO assistance in accordance with their published criteria, while the older children will have a very strong case for an exercise of FCDO discretion. We note the applicants are willing and able to then provide biometrics prior to travel and before they collect their visas from a VAC in a neighbouring country, even if granted biometric excuse.’ 18. It is noted that border crossings out of Gaza closed on06 May 2024 . It is also noted that in order for your clients to travel to the UK, they would need to travel through a third country where they could access a VAC and enrol their biometric information. Furthermore, it has been noted from your legal representation letter dated13 February 2025 that ‘We note the applicants are willing and able to then provide biometrics prior to travel and before they collect their visas from a VAC in a neighbouring country’. It is therefore considered by their own admission; your clients have confirmed that they are able to travel to a VAC to enrol their biometric information before travelling to the UK. 19. In light of the above considerations, your clients’ request to be excused from the requirement to enrol their biometrics has been refused. 20. Given the above, it is considered that although a biometric excusal cannot be granted on this occasion, a predetermination of your clients’ application has been deemed appropriate for the purposes of your clients Unsafe Journey request. Consequently, the purpose of predetermining your clients’ application is to enable your clients to assess the risks of making an Unsafe Journey before they wish to travel to a VAC or wait until they deem their circumstances have changed and their journey has become less challenging. 21. It is open to your clients to complete their application by attending a visa application centre to enrol their biometrics within 240 days from the date of last submission of their online application, which was on06 February 2025 .” (Emphasis in the original).
“39. No exit from Gaza is guaranteed. The decision before the Minister on the cases before him is whether we regard their circumstances to be exceptional such as to justify a departure from published policy, and correspondingly to try to support their departure from Gaza by attempting to make the arrangements as described at paragraph 18. 40. Additionally, we will need to liaise with the Home Office to do what we can to ensure that visa processing is speedy (eg through an extension of biometric deferral as envisaged for medevacs), such as to avoid crossing Jordanian red lines that they will travel onward to the UK in potentially as little as 72 hours (a standard that Jordan has recently introduced).” (Emphasis added).
“Political and diplomatic efforts continue to secure a ceasefire, the release of hostages and the unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, alongside work to restore a framework for peace. The support that is outlined below for specific cohorts to leave Gaza is one contribution amongst several to alleviate the human suffering in Gaza and efforts towards a political solution. . . . Medical Evacuations The situation for those critically ill in Gaza is dire. All hospitals are either damaged or partly destroyed, with the vast majority unable to function. Essential medicines and supplies are running out and medical workers are not able to do their jobs safely. On that basis, the Government has committed to evacuate a limited number of sick and injured children out of Gaza to receive specialist treatment in NHS hospitals across the UK. All children will be accompanied by their immediate family, which means parents and siblings under 18. Where both parents are deceased, they must be accompanied by a responsible adult such as a legal guardian. The Government is partnering with the World Health Organization … which works on the ground and plays a critical role in supporting medical evacuations from Gaza. . . ”
“the FCDO has decided that it will extend support to [RKC2-7] to try to effect their departure from Gaza. The FCDO can now begin the process of trying to secure the various permissions and other arrangements. This is a complex process, and there are no guarantees that we will be able to achieve the outcome sought.”
“Once we have all the relevant information we can request from the Israeli authorities security clearances to allow your clients to depart Gaza in principle. If those are granted, we will need the support/agreement of others, including Jordan and a partner (usually an INGO) that can operate within Gaza to provide transport. We have no control over the outcomes or timings of those processes. In the event that all that is possible and a common date can be agreed, your clients or their family would be expected to make arrangements for their time in Jordan, any UK visa processes and onward travel to the UK. Everyone we help must comply with any and all instructions from the relevant authorities in each country, including all instructions and directions from the Jordanian authorities to depart before their transit permission (typically 72 hours) expires.”
“We are considering how to approach the requirement for rapid onward travel from Jordan before transit permissions expire, given that your clients’ entry clearance for the UK is conditional on successful biometric checks. We are also considering whether it would be wise to have any passports held outside Gaza to be sent to our colleagues in Jerusalem, to ensure we would be able to move in a timely manner should all other issues be resolved. We will update you next week.”
“• Agree to provide assurances, with visa applications and biometrics being submitted in Amman, for Core Consular cases (direct family of British Nationals) • Agree to not provide assurances for Exceptional Consular cases • Agree to not seek to extend the cohorts at this stage beyond HMG current priorities – Medevacs, Chevening Scholars, Full scholarship students and Core Consular cases • Agree that individual cases can be raised by FCDO, or other government departments via FCDO, to be considered on a case-by-case basis.”
“8. Any decision to expand the assurances on onward travel, beyond those already in scope, would increase the risk of precedent setting where others in comparable situations seek to rely on these provisions; undermine biometric policy and national security which requires biometrics are checked prior to decisions on granting entry to the UK allowing for those who may seek to do harm being prevented from travelling to the UK; undermine the wider Immigration Rules by allowing those who do not meet the Rules to enter the UK. There is also a risk that by supporting individuals it could be implied that we accept that there is a duty to facilitate the reunification of family members. 9. These risks will become exacerbated once the fact that assurances are being given becomes more widely known. 10. Exit from Gaza remains subject to both Israeli and Jordanian approval, and is facilitated by FCDO. Currently, border openings are planned for 10th and 17th September and 22nd October. The capacity for exit is limited; FCDO expect there to be c600 exit slots across all countries, with the UK looking to use about 300- 350 of those.”
“15. There are additional requests for consular support that do not meet the above, referred to as 'exceptional requests'. These can be from a variety of individuals, including extended family of British nationals, journalists and NGOs. For context the FCDO continue to receive requests for support between 3-20 individual per week; on average only one case per month has included British nationals over the last quarter. 16. In this cohort the FCDO has agreed to support 36 people, in 7 family units, this was a FCDO Ministerial decision (following partially adverse judicial review findings in one case). 17. These individuals mostly hold 'positive pre-determinations' for UK visas (see Annex A 'What is a pre-determination?'). These decisions were based onArticle 8 ECHR being engaged. An example of a case is 'IA', he applied with his wife and children, to join his adult sibling in the UK, whilst the application was refused this was overturned at appeal onArticle 8 ECHR grounds. 18. The Biometric Policy Unsafe Journeys guidance is very clear that HMG will not facilitate travel to a visa application centre (VAC) or provide assurances of onward travel to the UK to anyone who obtains a positive pre- determination. That remains the responsibility of the individual. 19. [Redacted text]. We do not recommend supporting exceptional consular cases as it would undermine the Unsafe Journeys guidance. Do you agree?”
“20. We are also seeing requests from wider cohorts seeking support to exit Gaza, this includes journalists and employees of NGOs. On the 2nd September the former Home Secretary and former Foreign Secretary met and agreed to prioritise the existing agreements on medevac and student cohorts. 21. It would be possible to provide assurances to the Jordanians of onwards travel to the UK prior to biometrics being enrolled for a number of cohorts listed below. This would be based on biographic checks and would be subject to individuals submitting and paying for their visa application/ Immigration Health Surcharge, where appropriate. There are a number of overarching risks attached to providing broader assurances, as well as different risks and considerations for the various cohorts outlined in Annex B. 22. Based on these initial identified risks and the limited capacity for exit in September and October we recommend that you do not seek to extend the cohorts at this stage until you and Foreign Secretary are provided with [redacted text] a risk assessment subject to pipeline capacity. This position is also consistent with the NSC officials meeting. Do you agree? 23. There are instances where the FCDO, or other departments, are made aware of individual cases where the Foreign Secretary and you, Home Secretary, may wish to exercise discretion. We recommend that you agree that individual cases can be raised by FCDO, or OGDs via FCDO, to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that applicants who are supported apply for the most appropriate visa type where one exists and that biometrics are provided prior to travel to the UK in Jordan. This must also be subject to FCDO confirmation that logistics support exit on either 17th September or 22nd October. We will provide advice on onward travel assurances and, if necessary, Leave Outside the Rules. You will shortly receive advice on an individual case of an ITN journalists. 24. Do you agree to consider individual cases, raised by FCDO or OGD’s on a case-by-case basis?”
“a. Pre-determination – where the applicant requests that their application be provisionally assessed before biometrics are enrolled, to avoid undertaking an unsafe journey unnecessarily. The final decision is still subject to a satisfactory biometric enrolment and check ahead of travel to the UK. b. Biometric-excuse – biometric enrolment is excused or deferred until after the person is issued with entry clearance and reaches the UK.”
“4. Should an individual be granted a positive pre-determination, the policy does not offer a third country assurances that the applicant will be brought to the UK regardless of an adverse biometric result (e.g. a Laissez-Passer offer). This is because upstream biometric checks are crucial in allowing us to take appropriate action on derogatory information before an individual reaches the UK. 5. Offering assurance of onward travel for those … who hold a positive predetermination would completely erode the benefit of offering pre-determinations which protect the UK’s national security by still ensuring biometric checks are undertaken in advance of the final decision to grant a visa to enter the UK. The approach of providing assurances for positive predeterminations would not support wider national security or safeguarding concerns, nor would it maintain the wider policy position that biometrics must be enrolled before a decision on granting permission to travel to the UK.”
“The challenge with supporting this cohort is that the assessment of the genuineness of relationship is often complex, requires evidence of funding to meet the Minimum Income Threshold and accommodation. In instances where the sponsor in the UK does not earn, or hold, sufficient funds, then permission to enter can still be granted with recourse to public funds. Those in this cohort are also eligible to apply for a visa Fee waiver, and 'Unsafe Journey' consideration. There have been a number of visa applications from extended family members (adult siblings/nieces/other) seeking to rely on Article 8. [Redacted text]. Supporting this group may increase Article 8 claims from individuals outside the UK, not limited to Gaza. To provide assurances to this cohort could result in large numbers seeking support and because the requirements of the rules are not met, then relying on public funds, including housing, to support themselves on arrival in the UK. Providing assurances only to those who had a positive pre-determination, whilst reassuring ourselves of the nature of the relationship, has the potential to undermine the wider biometric policy and set a precedent for other locations where people believe they can only enter a country with the assurance of onward travel.”
“Jordanian positions on onward travel are firmly held, and grounded in policy concerns about displacement. Other international partners who are operating at scale are understood to have offered blanket assurances, and that is what Jordan wants and expects. They might shift from that position, although the limitations on our ability to offer a contingency arrangement for a biometric failure is likely to be a factor. With the right sequencing, HM[G]'s view is that we should be able to have exploratory contact about cases where there is no onward travel assurance without affecting other cohort processes, and has highlighted the importance of candour and respect for their position. Given the confirmation as of yesterday that we have cohorts ready for the 29 September move, Post's refreshed advice on sequencing is that any formal ask of Jordan on this issue would be better made after the medevac and student cohorts are processed by MFA next week, on the basis that any progress that may be possible will entail patience.”
“Notes Jordan's confirmation that it requires a guarantee of onward travel to a confirmed destination country before it will agree to admit Gazans for transit. Notes the Home Office decision not to extend such assurances to this cohort, and its published policy that the Home Office will not support cross-border travel under the 'unsafe journey policy' that has been applied to this cohort.”
“We have considered the question of contingencies for anyone who failed biometrics. We do not recommend any of these options as being immediately viable. a) There is currently no viable UK contingency arrangement that does not involve Home Office assurances. Home Office officials have confirmed that their position on this family cohort remains as at 15 September.”
“Following a Judicial Review in July 2025 which held FCDO decision making to be irrational in considering (and declining) to support exit from Gaza in one case, the FCDO subsequently decided to extend support in August 2025 in order to try to effect the departure of 36 people on an exceptional basis. The majority of these 36 people have positive predeterminations of their UK visas to join family members in the UK, issued under the Unsafe Journey Policy. I understand that policy does not extend to travel assurances as a general principle, and that the Home Secretary decided on or around 15 September not to extend assurances to this cohort due to precedent setting in Gaza and beyond, the impact on the unsafe journey's policy.”
“A family of six children (two of whom are minors) who wish to join their father in the UK. They were issued with ‘Minded to Issue Entry Clearance’ letters on1 May 2025 . In October 2023 they were taken to a nearby UNRWA school out of fears for their safety. At the end of 2023 the children and their mother fled the school. In May 2024 they travelled back to avoid the bombing. In August 2024 their mother was taken from them by her new husband, leaving the children effectively abandoned and forced to cope by themselves amidst a war despite never having lived independently or formed their own family unit. The children have no contact with their mother. The children are displaced, without parental support, and surviving in a tent with little access to food, water, or medical care leading to malnutrition and dehydration. They are struggling to access aid and are too frightened to travel to where there is limited aid. As a result, they are forced to buy food from the black market when possible. The children have limited contact with their father due to poor signalling in Gaza and their messages to their father describe unbearable fear and trauma. Their father lives in the UK with his wife and two children (the stepmother and half siblings). According to a psychological report he is experiencing worsening mental health and suicidal ideation due to the separation and danger his children face. FCDO supported the father’s second wife and their children to leave Gaza in December 2023. ”
“In the course of the Defendants’ preparation of their evidence it has become apparent that the SSHD has not previously been asked to consider whether to provide assurances in the Claimants’ cases on an individualised basis (i.e. on consideration of the specific facts of their case). Rather, the SSHD’s key decision-making to date, as regards the provision of assurances to Jordan (which is currently the only potential exit route), has been conducted on a “cohort basis”, and the Claimants have been considered only in the context of wider cohorts for consideration. Once this was identified, and following urgent consultation, it has been agreed that Ministers should be asked to consider this case on an individualised basis, by reference to the Claimants’ specific circumstances, in order to decide whether to provide assurances to Jordan in respect of the Claimants on an exceptional basis. Officials are aware of the urgency. The decision will need to be made at a Ministerial level, and the necessary submissions are being prepared at pace.”
“This submission has been delegated to Minister Norris. Minister Norris has reviewed: Submission: Gaza – request for onwards assurance - exceptional Consular case ITN - Gaza onward assurance RKC supplementary information and Annex A – Supplementary Note: RKC1 & Others -v- SSFCDA (D1) and SSHD (D2) Skeleton Argument AC-2025-LON-003818 Minister Norris agrees with the recommendation to not provide onward travel assurance to this family group (RKC2-7), with no further comments.” (Emphasis in the original).
“Israel monitors every little step in the Gaza Strip. Every SIM card in the Gaza Strip is monitored. A lot of times when they say they’re targeting a person, they’re targeting the SIM card. So, what we have is a whole massive apparatus of surveillance that has existed for years for military use.”
“Behind closed doors, many [national leaders] tell me how much they value Israel’s superb intelligence services that have prevented time and again terrorist attacks in their capitals, time and again saving countless lives. General George Keegan, former head of US air force intelligence, once said: “If the United States had to gather on its own the intelligence that Israel gives us, we would have to establish five CIAs.”” 14. Claimants 2-7 have never left Gaza. In light of the sophistication, intensity and breadth of Israeli intelligence operations in Gaza, to the extent that data exists which discloses that they may be linked to terrorist activity, or serious criminality, this data is likely to have been held by Israel, and would have been identified in the course of Israel’s security checks.” “Behind closed doors, many [national leaders] tell me how much they value Israel’s superb intelligence services that have prevented time and again terrorist attacks in their capitals, time and again saving countless lives. General George Keegan, former head of US air force intelligence, once said: “If the United States had to gather on its own the intelligence that Israel gives us, we would have to establish five CIAs.””
“I am personally aware there are instances where individuals have passed Israeli security checks but have adverse hits on UK holdings. It would not be appropriate to disclose the details of national security checks undertaken by the UK government or the data sets that they are undertaken against. However, it would be wrong to assume that there is equivalence of those checks when compared to the security processes of another Government. There will always be differences between the national security priorities, thresholds, capabilities, data sets and wider security apparatus of different Governments. While security checks undertaken by another Government may provide a level of assurance regarding whether an individual poses a threat to the United Kingdom, those checks cannot replicate or replace the checks undertaken by the UK government itself.”
“the age of the child, the fact that they are without parental support in Gaza, the circumstances in which those conditions arose, along with the Immigration Rules being likely met, and that the Foreign Secretary wishes to support their exit.”
“No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national”
“Individuals will not generally be excused from having to attend a VAC to enrol their biometrics solely because they have a UK sponsor. The individual must provide evidence they have an urgent need to come to the UK that overrides the need for the Secretary of State to protect the border, our national security and ensure public safety. Given the importance of the public interest, such decisions can only be made by Ministers. If you consider the requirements are met, you must send a submission to a Home Office min[i]ster who has responsibility for immigration and citizenship recommending that a biometric excusal is granted.” (Emphasis added).
“Where you are satisfied the individuals meet the requirements to be excused the requirement to attend a VAC, and you are satisfied that it is not at all possible for them to attend any VAC to enrol their biometric information before coming to the UK, even on route to the UK, you must obtain approval from a Home Office minister before notifying them of your decision to excuse them from the requirement to attend a VAC before they travel to the UK.” (Emphasis Added).
“[72] The WHO are a trusted third party who undertook considerable work in identifying patients. I understand that the WHO review documentation and information supplied to them in support of identity, family links and medical history/ condition. They have access to the original documentation that are provided direct to them and have local knowledge. [73] Similarly, the students are supported by their universities and scholarship providers who will have undertaken due diligence to ensure they are who they have stated they are—people who are able to study at the highest level. These institutions have decided to give very significant sums of money to the students, sums they would not give unless they were satisfied as to their identity and ability to undertake the study. These third-party assurances gave a clear indication members of these groups were highly likely to meet the requirements of the Rules and go some way to mitigate the border security and identity risks for these cohorts. The steps go beyond the review of a single identity document to reach their decision on supporting them under the medevac or fully funded scholarship process.”
“central to the constitutional responsibilities of the Government. It is the executive government, as represented by the relevant Ministers, which has the democratic authority to take decisions in [this area], because it is important that those doing so should be responsible to the public for the effective protection of national security”