Human rights in times of War: tribunal finds the return to Ukraine of a client undergoing treatment for a serious cancerous disease disproportionate
Sterling Law secures permission to stay for our client following a Home Office refusal that took account of neither the gravity of her condition nor the realities of war.
The case was handled by Anna Shvetsova and Otabek Gulomov.
Background
Our client is a Ukrainian national who has lived in the United Kingdom since February 2013, more than thirteen and a half years. In September 2022, following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, she applied for and was granted 30 months of leave outside the Immigration Rules on the basis of her private life.
Throughout her years of stay in the UK our client worked diligently, received no public funds and contributed to the UK economy. In 2023, against the background of the war in her homeland and the hardships of life far from home, she experienced a significant deterioration in her health. Medical examination revealed symptomatic invasive breast cancer with lymph node involvement. She underwent a mastectomy, lymph node clearance and a course of chemotherapy and now receives long-term hormone therapy under the supervision of NHS oncologists.
In February 2025, in light of these circumstances, she applied to extend her leave in the UK on the basis of her private life.
The Home Office refusal
On 8 July 2025 the Home Office refused the application.
The decision was manifestly unfounded, as it wholly disregarded the realities of the war in Ukraine, our client’s medical condition and her fundamental rights. The Home Office found no evidence that “a short break in treatment whilst relocating is insurmountable” and suggested that she could “relocate to another area of Ukraine where more treatment is available”. Although the Home Office’s own country note records close to 2,000 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine during an ongoing full-scale war, the decision concluded that Ukraine’s healthcare system was “capable of assisting you if necessary”.
Grounds of appeal
On 10 July 2025 we lodged an appeal with the First-tier Tribunal and also requested reconsideration of the decision.
We argued that our client’s return to Ukraine would breach Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR, that the Home Office had misapplied AM (Zimbabwe), ignored its own evidence of attacks on Ukrainian medical facilities and failed to assess the very significant obstacles to her reintegration. The team of Otabek Gulomov acted promptly and compiled a voluminous bundle of evidence: her full NHS medical records, oncology clinic letters, CT, ultrasound and mammogram reports, proof of continuous residence, support letters, and up-to-date reports of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission and the WHO on attacks on healthcare infrastructure in Ukraine.
The Tribunal’s decision
The appeal was heard on 1 September 2026 and was allowed under Article 8 ECHR.
The judge accepted that our client is “seriously ill in the AM(Zimbabwe) sense” and stressed that she is not “a woman who has chosen this disease”. The Tribunal identified the inconsistency at the heart of the Home Office’s position: its contention that appropriate treatment would be available in Ukraine “is not supported by the Respondent’s own country evidence”, while removal “would foreseeably disrupt the continuity of her established oncology care”. The judge found that our client’s prospects of obtaining treatment “would be severely diminished given the parlous state of the healthcare system in Ukraine and in particular Cancer treatment facilities” and that the security risks “can only be amplified for those who suffer from the illness”.
The Tribunal also found very significant obstacles to her reintegration: thirteen years of absence and no family, home or income in Ukraine. The judge emphasised the fundamental distinction between those who come to the UK to take advantage of the NHS and those who have lived and worked here lawfully and fell ill during that residence.
Finding the Home Office’s conclusion unsustainable, the Tribunal held that her return would constitute a disproportionate interference with her rights under Article 8 ECHR. In compliance with the decision, on 14 September 2026 the Home Office granted our client 30 months’ permission to stay.
This case is of particular significance to our team. Sterling Law consistently supports Ukraine and its people, and this case was not only about immigration status but, above all, about human rights, justice and respect for human life and health. The Tribunal’s decision confirms that the serious illness of a person who has lived and worked lawfully in the UK cannot be dismissed by a formal reference to the ostensible availability of treatment in a country at war. For our client, it means she can continue her treatment and her life in safety, and for Sterling Law it is another decision in which our team has defended not only our client’s rights but also fundamental human values.
