Chinese Applicant Turned Down Over Nationality: Tribunal Says It’s Not Discrimination

Published : June 27, 2025

In Ms Tianlin Xu v Binary AI Ltd and James Patrick-Evans, the employment tribunal dismissed the claim for discrimination of race by the Chinese applicant, finding that the employer’s decision not to hire her was based on legitimate national security concerns. Although the employer was impressed by her credentials, its status as a start-up meant it lacked the capacity to implement the safeguards required to obtain her security clearance.

Below, we examine the background of her claim and the reasoning behind the employment tribunal’s judgment. We then examine key takeaways for employees and discuss how, if at all, this ruling affects their rights.

If you have faced racial discrimination at the workplace and want expert legal help, contact Redmnas Solicitors now. As sector specialists, we can discuss your specific circumstances, address your questions, and outline potential next steps. To begin, simply:

The Facts in Ms Tianlin Xu v Binary AI Ltd and James Patrick-Evans

Chinese Applicant: Case Background

Binary AI Ltd (“the First Respondent”) is a UK cybersecurity start-up, founded by Dr James Patrick-Evans (“the Second Respondent”). The organisation develops AI models to detect concealed backdoors in software and safeguard organisations against related supply chain threats.

After the First Respondent won a contract with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), it advertised for the role of Lead AI Researcher. Ms Tianlin Xu (“the Claimant”), a Chinese national, subsequently applied for the position and was interviewed on 29 September 2023. While she lacked relevant experience that other candidates had, her background and grasp of relevant technical documentation impressed.

Despite this, the Second Respondent decided not to proceed with her application. During the hiring process, he spoke with top UK defence sector officials and was advised against employing the Chinese applicant. Their reasoning simply came down to the matter of national security, insisting that, for this type of hire to work, provisions that a start-up couldn’t afford would need to be implemented. Furthermore, even if the First Respondent could safely hire the Claimant, they asserted that the First Respondent’s business within the defence sector would be affected.

Claim for Racial Discrimination at the Workplace Brought by Chinese Applicant

On 28 October, following advice from top UK defence officials, the Second Respondent wrote to the Claimant, stating, “…I’ve come to the decision not to proceed with your application on the sole basis of your nationality.” He explained that due to national security concerns and his small company’s inability to establish necessary precautions, hiring her wasn’t possible at this time. Nevertheless, he reaffirmed his acknowledgement of her potential and wished to remain in contact should they be in a position to hire her in the future.

The Chinese applicant wasn’t satisfied with this explanation, though. She believed the Respondent’s reasoning for not hiring her was unlawful, and claimed race discrimination on 8 March 2024.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the tribunal deliberated on the claim of race discrimination. It outlined that, while the Second Respondent had stated the Claimant’s application had been discontinued solely because of her nationality, this was merely a “very clumsy email.”

In actual fact, the Chinese applicant hadn’t been successful in her application for several reasons. Primarily, the Second Respondent had offered the role to a more suitable candidate with sector-specific experience. Additionally, due to the Claimant’s nationality, there were concerns that she wouldn’t be able to obtain the satisfactory security clearance necessary for the role. There were also concerns about her salary expectations, which exceeded those of the successful candidate, and her social media activity.

Therefore, while the statement “…I’ve come to the decision not to proceed with your application on the sole basis of your nationality” appears discriminatory in isolation, the tribunal found that, in context, the Second Respondent’s decision conveyed a very different picture. It wasn’t simply that her Chinese nationality was an issue, but rather, holding Chinese citizenship prevented her from obtaining the necessary security clearance.

With this in mind, the tribunal ruled that racism wasn’t at play and dismissed Ms Xu’s race discrimination claim.

Race Discrimination, National Security, and Employee Rights

The above case raises complex legal questions about how nationality and national security intersect with UK race discrimination laws. While the tribunal ultimately ruled in favour of the employer, employees must understand that this was a highly fact-specific decision. It doesn’t give companies a broad licence to discriminate, and grasping one’s rights is essential to ensure they aren’t breached.

In the Chinese applicant’s claim, the tribunal acknowledged that national security concerns could legitimately be taken into account. However, this is a rare exception. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination based on race, which includes colour, nationality, and ethnic origin. If an employer wants to rely on national security to justify differential treatment, it must have legitimate and proportionate reasons for doing so; otherwise, it will be unlawful.

If there are concerns that discrimination of race has occurred, it will initially be the Claimant’s responsibility to prove this. Once such facts have been established, though, the burden will shift to the employer. The employer will be required to demonstrate that discrimination didn’t occur or was based on non-discriminatory reasons. Should it be unable to prove either, it’s likely the tribunal will rule in the Claimant’s favour.

For this reason, obtaining feedback after an unsuccessful application can be valuable. While there’s no legal right to receive detailed feedback following an interview, doing so, especially if discrimination is suspected, could prove vital if later required during legal proceedings.

In any event, it’s important to remember that the above ruling doesn’t dilute the protections under the Equality Act 2010. Employees and job applicants continue to be protected against direct and indirect race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. If an individual suspects racism, it’s essential that they act fast to ensure they obtain the justice they deserve.

Get Help with Redmans

If you have any questions after reading about the case involving the Chinese applicant, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and following a quick chat, we can discuss your options.

All you have to do to get started now is:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.