Get you up to speed: ‘We were promised escape to UK – but they’ve betrayed us by denying our visas’ | News UK
The UK Home Office denied visa applications for two democracy activists from Hong Kong, identified as John and Edward, due to their convictions for riot following protests against anti-democracy laws. At least ten other activists have faced similar visa rejections since July 2023, as authorities continue to uphold convictions made by Hong Kong courts.
The Home Office has rejected BNO visa applications for at least 10 democracy activists based on riot convictions. The refusals have prompted allegations from lawyers that the rejections overlook the politically motivated nature of these convictions.
The Home Office has denied BNO visa applications from Hong Kong democracy activists, provoking accusations of complicity in political persecution from those affected and their legal representatives. In response, Priti Patel MP condemned the current administration for “kowtowing to China,” while lawyers have urged the Home Office to revisit its internal guidance to better align with the intentions of the BNO policy.
What remains unclear — It is not specified how the Home Office will address concerns regarding the politically motivated convictions of democracy activists in Hong Kong affecting their visa applications.
Hong Kong democracy activists claim UK betrayed them by denying visas
Democracy activists feel ‘betrayed’ after the UK blocked them from fleeing Hong Kong because they were convicted for rallying against China.
Hong Kongers were promised a safe and legal route to Britain in 2020 but two democracy protestors told WTX the Home Office had denied their visas.
John and Edward – not their real names – had their British National Overseas (BNO) visa applications rejected in July because they were convicted of riot by Hong Kong ‘kangaroo courts’ after protesting anti-democracy laws.
Lawyers told WTX there were at least 10 other democracy activists who had all been denied for similar reasons since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister.
John and Edward, whose identities we are protecting because they fear for their safety in Hong Kong, accuse the UK of aiding political persecution by accepting their ‘politically-motivated’ convictions at face value.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
Priti Patel MP, who brought in the visa route as Home Secretary in 2020, accused Andy Burnham and Labour of ‘kowtowing to China’.
The UK introduced the BNO visa in 2021 to give eligible Hong Kong citizens and their families a route to UK citizenship following a Chinese crackdown on protests in Hong Kong.
More than 170,000 people with BNO status have arrived in the UK since, including Edward’s elderly parents and brother.
Edward was a student when he became involved in pro-democracy protests which gripped Hong Kong in 2019 after a controversial extradition law was proposed by the government.
On July 28, he arrived alongside thousands of other activists at a demonstration against police violence in Yuen Long.
He told WTX: ‘I stood at the front of the group with an umbrella, trying to protect myself. As the police were clearing protestors with massive force, I was arrested on the spot.’
Edward, now 28, says he was beaten by police with a baton and then arrested for unlawful assembly, before being charged with riot in prison.
He pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced to three and a half years in prison in January 2022.
When he was released in March 2024, he was barred from continuing his education and struggled to get a job.
After his brother, mum, and dad moved to the UK, Edward applied for a BNO visa in October 2025, but the Home Office denied his application on July 21 this year.
In a letter seen by WTX, officials said they were rejecting his visa bid because of his riot conviction, overlooking arguments from his lawyers claiming he was a victim of unfair political repression.
Under British immigration law, an application must be refused when the applicant has received a sentence longer than 12 months, however that does not apply for a crime ‘that would not be criminal in the UK’.
Edward argued this applied to his conviction for riot while ‘fighting for justice and democracy’, but the Home Office disagreed.
The refusal letter quoted extensively from the Hong Kong court judgement against Edward, which described how he was at the front of protesters confronting police and did not follow orders to disperse.
Despite acknowledging that the judge did not accuse Edward of conducting any violent action, the Home Office decided Edward’s conduct would be seen as criminal in the UK.
Edward said he was ‘very disappointed’ by the refusal.
He added: ‘It was ridiculous because the Home Office clearly agreed that I am not a violent protestor but agreed with the court judgement.
‘The BNO visa was meant to help Hong Kongers being prosecuted by the government.’
Edward is devastated that the ruling may mean he will never see his family in the UK again, or be able to care for his dad, who is in poor health.
He is also frightened: ‘Political violence is getting worse. The government is suppressing democracy activists like me all the time.’
His lawyer, Kate Lam, told WTX his refusal was a ‘betrayal of the main purpose of the BN(O) policy… to fulfil the UK’s historic, diplomatic and moral responsibility for Hong Kong and her people.’
She added: ‘It is deeply concerning and disappointing that the Home Office appears to increasingly rely on the politically-motivated, persecutory criminal convictions handed down by the Hong Kong kangaroo courts to democratic activists in refusing British nationals from Hong Kong entry to the UK.’
John’s refusal came just a day after Edward’s and followed an almost identical wording.
He was among two thousand activists who clashed with police on November 19, 2019, in support of student protestors trapped inside Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
John said he was shot by a rubber bullet and arrested by police before being taken to hospital.
He was later charged with riot and pleaded guilty, as many protestors did in hopes of a shorter sentence.
John served two years and one month in prison before being released early on good behaviour in November 2025.
He had already applied for a BNO visa a month earlier because he ‘did not feel safe in Hong Kong’, claiming he was threatened by police officers to reveal his contacts with other political activists.
In a letter seen by WTX, the Home Office rejected his application on July 22, because of his riot conviction of longer than 12 months.
Again, the official quoted extensively from the judge, while acknowledging that the ruling did not state that John had been witnessed being violent.
The judge’s summary remarks described petrol bombs being thrown at police, damage to property and refusals to disperse during the clashes with protestors.
The Home Office argued the judgement showed his conduct would be viewed as criminal in the UK.
John said the rejection made him feel ‘betrayed by the UK government’.
He added: ‘The whole point of the BNO visa is to protect people like me and to protect the human rights of Hong Kongers.
‘Right now I am being treated like a criminal but all I did was protect the democracy of Hong Kong. Now the UK government is refusing to provide any protection.’
Lawyers for John and Edward said they had seen successful cases in the past of political activists who had been convicted for riot but had their visas to the UK granted.
While in the past they claim it was a ‘case by case basis’, they say recent refusals under Andy Burnham ‘clearly demonstrates that the current refusals no longer consider’ that the riot convictions are ‘politically motivated’.
Ms Lam said: ‘We urge the Home Office to review its internal guidance and align it with the British values that are represented in the BN(O) policy, to not let the side down on Hongkongers and ensure eligible British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong are never refused entry to the UK for fighting for freedom and democracy.’
Priti Patel, who announced the BNO visa scheme as Home Secretary in 2020, said: ‘Andy Burnham and Labour are kowtowing to China. We need to protect and safeguard Hong Kongers who are having their freedoms undermined and suppressed by Labour’s friends in the CCP.’
Emily Dalington, chair of Parliament’s APPG on Hong Kong, said she was also ‘hearing more alarming reports’ of BNO applicants being rejected over criminal prosecutions which ‘we do not necessarily recognise in the UK’.
She added: ‘The UK has a special responsibility to the people of Hong Kong and we made promises to them. These promises should be kept.’
Bobby Dean MP, vice chair of Parliament’s APPG on Hong Kong, said: ‘The British Government made a promise to the people of Hong Kong and I fear that promise is now being walked back on.
‘We provided a 50 year guarantee that China would protect Hong Kongers basic freedoms. When authorities started throwing people in jail for legitimate, democratic protest, that agreement was broken. It was then our duty to provide those people with a lifeboat to the UK.
‘The reports that the Home Office are turning people away for these bogus convictions undermines the entire purpose of the BNO scheme.’
Tomas Roberto, UK Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy at The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, said: ‘Britain must stop treating political dissent as a crime.
‘Hong Kongers who were prosecuted under the Chinese Communist Party’s National Security Law for peaceful pro-democracy activity should not be automatically shut out of the U.K. simply because an authoritarian regime labelled their activism an offence; surely it is not beyond the British Government to ensure the “safe pathway” promised to Hong Kongers fleeing repression can distinguish genuine criminal conduct from political persecution.’
The Home Office said they could not ‘assess the veracity’ of these ‘anonymised claims’.
A spokesperson added: ‘The Government remains steadfast in its support for members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and is fully committed to the BN(O) route, which will continue to welcome Hong Kongers.
‘The standard Immigration Rules apply to the route in relation to criminality and other adverse behaviour.’
Great article! This really puts things into perspective. I appreciate the thorough research and balanced viewpoint.
Interesting read, though I think there are some points that could have been explored further. Would love to see a follow-up on this topic.
Thanks for sharing this! I had no idea about some of these details. Definitely bookmarking this for future reference.
Well written and informative. The examples provided really help illustrate the main points effectively.
This is exactly what I was looking for! Clear, concise, and very helpful. Keep up the excellent work!