TOEIC Cases: Why Historical Injustice Is No Longer Enough

A wrongful allegation of cheating in an English-language test can have serious consequences for someone’s immigration status. But does proving that the allegation was wrong automatically entitle a person to indefinite leave to remain (ILR)?

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v MD Shahadat Hossain [2026] EWCA Civ 1310, handed down on 15 October 2026, the Court of Appeal said no. The Court confirmed that the TOEIC-related historical injustice must be considered, but it does not automatically determine the remedy. The applicant’s later immigration history can also matter.

The ruling is important for people whose past applications or leave were affected by a TOEIC deception allegation. It does not mean that ILR is unavailable to everyone affected. It means that a claim for settlement must be assessed on its own facts, including what happened after the original decision.

What was the TOEIC issue?

TOEIC is the Test of English for International Communication. In 2014, concerns emerged about widespread cheating at some test centres, including the use of proxy test-takers. The Home Office relied on evidence supplied by the test provider to identify applicants it considered to have cheated. Some people challenged those findings, arguing that they had been wrongly accused.

In Ahsan and others v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2009, the Court of Appeal considered whether affected applicants could have an effective opportunity to challenge the allegation from within the UK. In Khan and others v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1684, the Court recorded arrangements for dealing with the particular cases before it. Those decisions recognised the serious impact of wrongful allegations and the need for an effective remedy.

However, neither case created a general rule that every person later found not to have cheated must receive ILR. The Court of Appeal’s new decision clarifies that distinction.

What happened in Hossain?

Mr Hossain came to the UK as a student in 2009. In 2014, the Home Office refused a further application for leave on the basis that he had obtained an English-language certificate by deception. He challenged the decision, but permission to pursue judicial review was refused.

In 2015, while on immigration bail, he stopped complying with reporting requirements. He later made an asylum claim in 2018, withdrew it in 2022, and applied for leave outside the Immigration Rules in 2021. In 2023, after an appeal, the First-tier Tribunal found that he had not used deception in the TOEIC test. He was granted 30 months’ limited leave.

Mr Hossain then applied for ILR. The Home Office refused that application, taking account of both the wrongful TOEIC allegation and his later immigration history. The Upper Tribunal quashed the refusal, but the Secretary of State appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed that appeal. It held that the Home Secretary could grant limited leave rather than ILR, and that the decision to grant 30 months’ leave was rational in the circumstances. You can read the Court of Appeal judgment.

Why did later conduct matter?

The Court said the remedy for historical injustice is a fact-specific exercise of discretion. The original wrong must be properly recognised and considered, but it does not require the Home Office to ignore everything that happened afterwards.

In Mr Hossain’s case, the Court accepted that the Secretary of State could take account of his failure to comply with immigration bail and the delay before he took further steps to regularise his status. It rejected the argument that the bail breach should be excused simply because the original decision was disputed. The Court stressed that immigration bail conditions must be complied with, even where an underlying decision may later be found to be wrong.

The Court also considered the time between Mr Hossain ceasing to report and his later attempts to regularise his position. His history included an asylum claim that was eventually withdrawn and a later application for leave outside the Rules. The Court held that the Secretary of State was entitled to take this delay into account when deciding what remedy was appropriate.

This does not mean that every delay or breach will have the same effect in another case. The ruling confirms that such matters may be relevant; it does not set a fixed formula for how much weight they must receive.

Does the judgment mean TOEIC applicants cannot get ILR?

No. The Court did not rule that people affected by TOEIC allegations can never qualify for settlement. It decided that historical injustice does not, by itself, guarantee ILR. The outcome depends on the applicant’s circumstances and the legal route they are relying on.

It is also important to distinguish between different types of decision. Mr Hossain’s case concerned a later application for ILR after a finding that he had not cheated. Separately, Home Office guidance on implementing ETS appeals sets out different outcomes depending on whether an appeal succeeds on human-rights grounds, the TOEIC allegation, or both. It says that where an ILR application was made, the appeal succeeded on both ETS and human-rights grounds, and the applicant meets the requirements of the relevant route, ILR should be granted. See the government’s ETS appeal implementation guidance.

That guidance and the Hossain judgment should not be treated as interchangeable. The guidance addresses how particular appeal outcomes should be implemented. Hossain addresses how a later settlement decision may take account of an individual’s full history. Applicants need to identify which rules, guidance and remedies apply to their own case.

What about a pending application?

The Court expressly stated that its decision did not affect Mr Hossain’s latest application for leave or his existing section 3C leave. Section 3C leave can extend a person’s leave in certain circumstances while an in-time application or appeal remains pending. The Court anticipated that the Home Secretary would consider both Mr Hossain’s earlier period of student leave and the leave granted after his appeal when deciding his pending application. The outcome of that application remained for the Home Secretary to determine.

The practical lesson is not to assume that a pending application has been decided, cancelled or guaranteed by Hossain. Its status and the effect of the judgment must be checked against the applicant’s own application history, current leave and the relevant Immigration Rules.

What should applicants review now?

Anyone relying on a TOEIC-related historical injustice should gather a clear chronology and supporting documents, including:

• the original refusal, curtailment or deception decision;
• any tribunal findings about whether deception occurred;
• immigration bail conditions and records of compliance;
• details of applications, appeals, withdrawals and periods without leave;
• evidence explaining any delay in taking steps to regularise status; and
• the specific settlement route and requirements relied on.

A careful assessment should separate the effect of the original wrongful allegation from the later questions of eligibility, suitability and discretion. The Court’s decision makes that full picture particularly important.

For wider information on settlement requirements and changes, see our guides to earned settlement and Indefinite Leave to Remain. Those broader guides do not replace advice on a TOEIC case, where past decisions and individual conduct may affect the analysis.

What the TOEIC ILR Court of Appeal ruling means

The key message from the TOEIC ILR Court of Appeal decision is that a wrongful deception allegation remains a serious injustice that the Home Office must properly consider. But the remedy is not automatic. The applicant’s conduct, the timing of later applications, the route to settlement and the details of any pending case may all matter.

Each case turns on its own history. Applicants concerned about how Hossain may affect an ILR application or pending immigration matter should seek advice based on their documents and timeline. Tyndel Solicitors advises individuals on applications, appeals and judicial reviews through its immigration law service.

Request a Free Consultation

If a past TOEIC allegation has affected your leave or settlement plans, contact Tyndel Solicitors to discuss your circumstances and the options available. This article provides general information, not legal advice on an individual case.