Day: March 1, 2018

Remarkable success in a deportation order out of country appeal involving criminality

Sterling and Law Associates are proud to report a unique successful appeal against a Deportation Order issued by the Secretary of State against a New Zealand citizen, who had been convicted of outraging public decency in the UK.

The procedural aspects of the hearing make this case very unusual, especially the fact that the Appellant was in New Zealand at the time of the hearing, “attending” the proceedings via Skype.

The Secretary of State (the Respondent) issued a Deportation Order against a citizen of New Zealand (the Appellant), who had been lawfully present in the UK on a Tier 5 visa but was prosecuted after pleading guilty to acts outraging public decency in the UK. The Appellant had been arrested before the expiry of his visa and served his sentence, after which he was detained. In the meantime, the Respondent issued a Notice of Decision to deport him on the basis of public interest and serious harm caused by the crimes committed. The Appellant successfully challenged the decision of the Respondent, arguing that he in fact had voluntarily departed the UK, and that his crimes did not cause serious harm to the victims or the society.

During the proceedings, the Appellant contended that he voluntarily departed the UK, albeit accompanied by Immigration Officers to the airport, which was illustrated by his purchase of the plane tickets. The Appellant also argued that the Deportation Order would have a very adverse effect on his ability to travel internationally for his work.

The most crucial point of contention in this case, however, was determining whether his crimes constituted serious harm, which would justify the Deportation Order on the grounds of public interest. The Respondent argued that there was indeed serious harm caused, evidenced by persistence of Appellant’s actions.

However, agreeing with the Appellant, the Judge found that the crimes did not in fact amount to serious harm because they did not have any strong physical or emotional effect on victims or the society in general and there was nothing to suggest a high risk of reoffending. Satisfied that the Appellant had not caused serious harm with his crimes, and had left the country voluntarily, the Judge allowed the appeal.

This appeal shows that with expert legal advice, even in cases involving criminality, it is more than possible to successfully challenge decisions of the Secretary of State to issue a Deportation Order, even if the person concerned is as far away from the UK as New Zealand.

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular case and relevant immigration law requirements, please contact our immigration lawyers on 020 7822 8535 or via our online appointment booking form.

UK Visa Cap for Skilled Non-EU Workers has been Hit for Third Month in a Row

What does this mean for you?

For the third month running, the cap for Tier 2 workers has been reached, indicating a trend that could signify a permanent change to the government’s approach. This means that many skilled workers from outside the EU will not receive a certificate of sponsorship to obtain their visa until the number of applications decreases.

How can we help?

This does not mean you are stuck. We can explore a number of options and offer you a bespoke solution based on identifying your needs and assisting your workers to obtain their visas. Contact us today for more information.

Deadline for sponsors

The deadline for informing the Home Office about the number of unrestricted certificates for the period of 6 April 2018 to 5 April 2019 is approaching. If you are 1) intending to promote or extend the visas of any Tier 2 employees, 2) looking to employ a worker from abroad with a Tier 1 or Tier 4 visa, or 3) looking to be sponsor a worker under Tier 2 Intra-Company Transfer, you will need to apply for a fixed number of unrestricted certificates by 5 April.

Please note that the Home Office can revoke, suspend or downgrade your licence if you provide incorrect information. If you are having trouble understanding how this works, or need assistance with the process, please contact us.

Get in touch

We are keen to get feedback from clients and understand what effects regulatory changes are having on your business. Please email us with any feedback or anecdotal evidence and we can lobby the government with the help of ILPA.

Asylum Claim Appeal Allowed by First-Tier Tribunal

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal case at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) challenging the Home Office’s refusal of a client’s asylum claim.

The Appellant has appealed under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the Respondent’s decision dated 2017 to refuse the grant of asylum.

The appellant is a Ukrainian national who came to the UK in 2012. The Appellant received military call up papers issued to him in 2015 and 2016 which were sent to his home address in Ukraine.

The Appellant asserted that he has a well-founded fear that on return to Ukraine he is going to be conscripted to the army to fight in the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation) zone. The Appellant claimed asylum under paragraphs 334 and 339C of the Immigration Rules. The claim was based on fear of persecution or serious harm because of his failure to report for military service and his political beliefs. The Appellant has also claimed that removal from the United Kingdom would breach obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 10 of the ECHR.

Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that the appellant has shown to the standard that the Ukrainian authorities have sought to find him and that the Appellant faces a real risk of imprisonment for evading the draft in the circumstances applicable to him.

Following that, the Judge held that the evidence showed that the Appellant would be likely to face conditions of detention that continue to contravene Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.

The appeal has been allowed.