UK Immigration & Nationality Lawyers

Spouse visa extension wrestled out of the Home Office

Client Success Stories

Spouse visa extension wrestled out of the Home Office

Some immigration decisions are unfairer than others, and this was a rather extreme, though not unusual, example of manifest indifference to natural justice. The client initially applied for extension of her spouse visa herself, without help from immigration solicitors, confident that she easily met the requirements of the immigration rules and her case was not complicated. Unfortunately, she failed to provide a full set of bank statements because she had changed her bank and was unable to access her old bank account. Her visa application was refused for failure to provide a mandatory document, despite the fact that her salary was way above the required threshold. She was told to leave the country or appeal and that was when she contacted Kadmos.

We had to make a decision, whether to appeal or to make a fresh application. The problem was, as it often is with immigration refusals, that our client’s passport was retained by the Home Office. If she were to appeal the decision she faced about a year of uncertainty, during which time she would still have the right to work, but would have been unable to travel. In her case it virtually meant losing her job which required extensive travelling abroad. The other option (not mentioned by the refusal letter) was to make a fresh application in country within 28 days of refusal. Yet, without a passport we could only make a postal application. And the downside of this option was that the client would not have had the right to work until this application was decided.

Success in this case was a joint achievement of immigration solicitors and the client’s local MP, who had the drive to overcome resistance of the Home Office and insist that the client’s passport be delivered to the premium service appointment centre in Croydon. Once this was arranged, the appointment for premium service was booked, and a decision was made on the same day approving spouse visa extension.

For people who do not face this type of injustice as frequently as immigration lawyers do, it may be difficult to believe that someone can be thrown out of her job, out of her home, and required to leave her family, leave the country, possibly with no option of coming back (!) – and no public interests is served by this cruelty! Yet, we are writing a success story, so we shall not complain.

 

Kadmos wins a Human Rights immigration appeal for a visitor from Syria

We are delighted to have finally won this appeal after more than two years of fierce fighting in immigration tribunals. Our client’s barrister in the Upper tribunal was Sonali Naik of Garden Court Chambers whose expertise, commitment and painstaking preparation was vital for the success of this case. The appellant was a Syrian national, currently resident in Egypt, who wished to visit her daughter’s family in the UK and who was denied a visitor’s visa due to political situation in Egypt and the war conflict in Syria.

We appealed to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of the First tier immigration tribunal which found that the appellant was a genuine visitor and met the requirements of the immigration rules, yet the judge refused her human rights appeal on the ground that no family life existed between an adult child and a financially independent parent and that the welfare of the three grandchildren of the appellant was not affected by the decision.

The judge also referred on the parliament’s decision to deny the right of appeal to visitors and concluded that this decision would have been ineffective if the Human Rights Act opened a back door for challenging arbitrary decisions.

The Upper Tribunal referred to conflicting case law on the correct approach to Article 8 claims in appeals related to refusals of entry to the UK. The Upper Tribunal then found that on the very particular facts of this case, there was family life between the appellant and her UK based daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. Although the family could in principle meet in Egypt, the judge took into account the political and economic situation of the country and the difficulties involved in transporting an entire family on a visit to Egypt as opposed to arranging for the appellant to come to the UK and concluded “it is clear that the public interest concerned with excluding an individual who the respondent accepts will be a genuine visitor, who will return to her country of habitual residence at the end of her visit, who will not need to rely upon public funds during her visit and who will use her visit to foster and develop relationship with minor children living permanently in the UK(thereby promoting their best interests), is a relatively minor one. On the particular facts of this appeal, I find that the decision to refuse the appellant entry clearance for her visit will cause disproportionate interference with the family life of the individuals involved.”

 

Tier 1 Entrepreneur Visa granted

We were instructed to represent a client in her application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur visa and Tier 1 Entrepreneur dependants’ visa for her husband and children. The client had the necessary funds and met formal requirements for this category. Her concern was the genuine entrepreneur test, as she had never previously ran a business of her own and had not had a formal education in business management. She wanted to give it a try but was conscious that Home Office may not take her seriously. Our role as representatives included full support with the project in question. We discussed in every detail the needs of the business, its position in the market, its projected cashflow, prospective clients, job creation strategy and profitability. When interviewed, our client was ready to answer any question put to her and her business plan was immediately approved. We are delighted that she and her family have now relocated to the UK, the business has taken off and has created the first full time job – a confident step toward extension of the visa, or even accelerated ILR after three years if the business progresses as planned.

Kadmos wins Human Rights appeal against refusal of general visitor’s visa

Our client applied for entry clearance to the UK as a general visitor so as to visit his elderly great aunt and uncle. His application was refused because the entry clearance officer did not believe that he intended to come to the UK as a genuine visitor. The entry clearance officer was concerned that in the previous year the applicant had spent seven months out of twelve in the UK and was providing care for his aging great aunt and uncle. The entry clearance officer decided that deception had been used in the previous application, because the applicant had not disclosed an intention to provide care for his relatives and the cumulative duration of his visits was longer than the proposed period. Thus, the application was refused on the grounds of past deception which meant that any further application would automatically be refused for the next ten years.

As with all general visitor’s applications, the rights of appeal are restricted. We challenged the decision on Human Rights grounds.

The immigration judge commented that in the circumstances where the elderly relatives required support and care it was impossible to draw a bright line between being a carer and a visitor. There was a clear and unjustifiable breach of the right to respect for private and family life, and there was no deception on the part of the Applicant even if duration of his previous stay was longer than originally envisaged. What was important that he never stayed beyond the time permitted by his visa and had always showed respect for immigration laws of the UK.

We are delighted that the tribunal has found in favour of our client and the decision refusing his application for entry clearance and imposing a ten year ban on his future application has rightly been set aside.

Kadmos Consultants win immigration appeal for a Tier 1 migrant

This case study has a happy ending but it shows what long winded consequences a simple error of completing the wrong application form may have.

Our client, a Tier 1 General migrant, contacted us when she received a refusal of her application for indefinite leave to remain and a decision to remove her from the UK. Her passport had been retained by the Home Office for enforcement of removal.

We read the papers and had to advise the client that unfortunately she had completed the wrong form. Technically, the decision was correct: she did not qualify for indefinite leave to remain. But she would have qualified for further leave to remain as a Tier 1 General migrant!

Fortunately for our client she had been served with a so called “one-stop appeal notice”. This notice is sometimes added to the decision to remove the person from the UK and invites them to bring forward any reasons why they should be allowed to stay.

We challenged the decision to remove our client and responded to the “one-stop notice” that Tier 1 General would be the alternative ground to consider. The Home Office ignored our representations and we proceeded with the appeal in the tribunal. We argued that the immigration judge had the jurisdiction to make a decision on the Points Based application. We then showed to the tribunal that the client scored all the required points for extension of stay. The appeal was allowed on the day of the hearing.

Another victory that we happily celebrate with our client!

2014 Kadmos Consultants / Sitemap / Privacy / Disclaimer / Terms Of Use

Design by Boshanka

Speak to a UK Immigration Lawyer! Call +44 (0) 208 930 9503 or send us a message
Complete the form and one of our UK immigration lawyers will be in touch.
Send