RB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2026] UKUT 136 (AAC) (25 March 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the Secretary of State was entitled to supersede the appellant’s Universal Credit award from 22 May 2020. It held that the appellant’s domestic appeal rights were exhausted on that date, his section 3C leave ended then, and his later ECtHR application and further human-rights submissions did not extend or revive that leave.

Key points

• Parties: RB appealed against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; the case was about Universal Credit entitlement after deportation-related immigration action.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision.
• Reasoning: section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 confines “pending” appeals to the domestic appellate system, so ECtHR proceedings could not keep section 3C leave alive.
• Reasoning: further human-rights submissions under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules do not engage section 3C and cannot revive expired leave.
• Evidence point: new Home Office material was inadmissible under Ladd v Marshall because it could and should have been obtained earlier and did not clearly establish the statutory basis of deportation.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none expressly addressed; the case is about immigration control, public-funds restriction, and welfare entitlement, not sanctions or export controls.

Why it matters

The decision reinforces a strict domestic-only reading of section 3C leave and confirms that post-domestic international litigation does not preserve access to public funds. For risk and compliance teams, it shows how deportation-linked immigration status can directly trigger welfare ineligibility and supersession decisions.

Implications

For litigation strategy, parties cannot rely on ECtHR proceedings or later human-rights submissions to argue that section 3C leave continued beyond the end of domestic appeal rights. For compliance and enforcement, the ruling supports using the exhaustion date of domestic appeal rights as the key cutoff for determining no recourse to public funds and revising benefit entitlement from that date.