Sterling & Law Associates LLP have been instructed by the clients to handle their appeal case two months before the hearing.
Aliya Rimshelis was appointed as a caseworker on this matter under the supervision of Ruslan Kosarenko and Shakir Hussain, Lever 3 OISC Immigration Lawyers.
Two appellants, a mother and daughter, have resided in the UK for a long time without legal status. While each of the appellants has a separate claim under Article 8 ECHR, both appeals were heard together as their matters raised similar Human Rights grounds and the outcome of one appeal would affect the decision on the other.
The first appellant was the mother who formed an unmarried relationship with the British partner and the second appellant was her daughter who is married to a British citizen. They applied for a spouse visas in-country which was subsequently refused. In the refusal letter the Home Office stated that there are no any exceptional circumstances and insurmountable obstacles for the family to relocate to Russia as they are familiar with the language and culture to a reasonable extent, and they have extended family members in Russia so it would not create a significant degree of hardship to relocate to the country they are from.
However, they failed to take into account that the family resided in the UK for almost 18 years and NEVER left the UK since then. The daughter has completed her secondary and university education in the UK. All their friends and family are in the UK. They established their private and family life in the UK. Another significant point which was raised in court was that the clients own a business in the UK. They are registered with HM Revenue & Customs and regularly pay taxes. So they were under the radar all the time and never hide from the Home Office. The question which was raised by the Immigration Judge was “Why the Home Office failed to remove them before?”. The Home Office could not answer this question.
Consequently, it follows that the appeal should be allowed on Human Rights grounds even if appellants failed to meet the requirements of Appendix FM of Immigration Rules which was not yet confirmed. The Immigration Judge formally reserved the decision at the hearing and proclaimed that he would try not to make any errors of law to make it hard to the Home office to appeal.
“The preparation for the appeal has not been straightforward as the clients had difficulties in obtaining requested financial documentation and fresh evidence of their relationship. We relied mostly on the documents which were provided with the submission of the case and eventually made a strong case and at the end achieved the successful result ” – said Aliya Rimshelis who was assisting senior caseworkers with the bundle preparation.
If you feel that you have similar circumstances do not hesitate to contact our lawyers who are ready to find a way out of any complex situation.