A High Court judge in Belfast has dismissed part of a judicial review challenge brought by a young Nigerian woman against two Home Office immigration schemes for domestic abuse victims, while upholding a concession already made by the state that one of those schemes unlawfully discriminated against her.

The applicant, identified only as JR337 to protect her identity, arrived in the UK in January 2024 at the age of 17 on a dependent visa linked to her mother's skilled worker visa. She alleged she was physically abused by her mother after arriving and was thrown out of the family home in late February or early March 2024. She subsequently spent several months homeless and eventually made her way to Belfast, where she presented to the Home Office in July 2024.

Following her 18th birthday in September 2024, she applied through Phoenix Law Solicitors to the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC), a Home Office scheme providing temporary leave to remain for migrant victims of domestic abuse. That application was refused on 31 October 2024 and the refusal upheld on review on 18 November 2024. She launched judicial review proceedings in January 2025, and after leave was granted in May 2025, the Home Office conceded in November 2025 that MVDAC had unlawfully discriminated against her under Article 14 combined with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The department accepted she had been treated less favourably than a partner or dependent child of a visa holder who suffered domestic abuse.

The Home Office offered to resolve the entire case by granting six months leave to remain outside the immigration rules - double the standard MVDAC period - along with access to public funds. The applicant rejected that offer and pursued a second challenge against a separate scheme, Appendix VDA, which provides a route to indefinite leave to remain for certain abuse victims. She argued that her exclusion from that scheme also constituted unlawful discrimination.

Mr Justice McAlinden rejected the Appendix VDA challenge. The judge ruled that the scheme is designed to ensure abuse victims are not left worse off following the breakdown of an abusive relationship, not to improve a person's immigration position beyond what it would otherwise have been. Because the applicant's mother held only a 12-month work visa that was not renewed, neither she nor her daughter was on any pathway to settled status. The judge found there was no valid comparator within the scheme's eligible applicants and dismissed both the direct and indirect discrimination arguments. He also rejected the argument that the Home Office had failed its duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to safeguard children's welfare, noting that the applicant had not in fact made a formal application under Appendix VDA.

On costs, the judge directed that the applicant is entitled to her costs against the Home Office for all work up to and including the November 2025 correspondence in which the concession was made. However, because she rejected a reasonable settlement offer and then lost the Appendix VDA challenge, the parties are to bear their own costs for the two-day substantive hearing held in February 2026. The applicant's costs are to be taxed as an assisted person.

The Western Health and Social Care Trust had provided the applicant with accommodation and support under the UNOCINI framework and arranged independent legal advice for her. That support is set to continue until she turns 21, provided she remains in the UK. The judge noted that the Home Office concession on MVDAC will benefit others in the same circumstances unless and until the scheme is amended.