Category: Successful Cases

Hungarian passport

Appeal Allowed against Home Office’s Decision to Refuse Application for Residence Card of Spouse of Hungarian National

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in an appeal heard on 14 June 2017 by the First-Tier Tribunal, this time, regarding the refusal to issue a residence card to non-EEA national, spouse of a Hungarian national.

The basis of the refusal was that the Home Office was not satisfied that the Appellant’s spouse and sponsor was an EEA national, thus not satisfying the requirements to be considered a “qualified person”.

The Home Office stated that after a visit the Appellant’s home address the enforcement officers said that the Sponsor was unable to provide a credible confirmation of the valid Hungarian citizenship and expressed concerns that his level of Hungarian was insufficient for him to be a Hungarian national. All of the above was referred in the Home Office’s decision as the basis to disregard an EEA Registration Certificate, a valid Hungarian passport and naturalisation certificate provided by the sponsor.

The Appellant then instructed Sterling & Law Associates LLP to represent the couple in their appeal against the Home Office’s decision. Upon further evidence on behalf of the clients, along some clarification regarding the special circumstances over the place of birth and Hungarian naturalisation process, the Judge found that there was enough proof to shift the balance of probabilities in favour of the Appellant.

The judge of the First-Tier Tribunal looked not only into the explanation of the “propiska” registration system, which caused a misunderstanding of the sponsor’s place of birth in the former USSR, but also emphasised that the Home Office had no reason to dispute the genuineness of the sponsor’s Hungarian nationality.

Subsequently, after a confirmation of the validity of the EEA national’s passport as an evidence of Hungarian nationality by the authorities as well as the credible explanation for the place of birth confusion, the appeal was allowed by reference to the Regulation 6 (Qualified Person) and Regulation 7 (Family Member) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006.

Successful appeal on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal process at the First-tier Tribunal challenging a refusal of a client’s application for a Tier 2 (General) visa and of his dependants.

A victim of fraud by his previous legal representative, the appellant inadvertently submitted fraudulent documents to the Home Office with his Tier 2 (General) application. As soon as he realised the documents were false, he sought our advice and assistance. We immediately acted to inform the Home Office of the situation and made further representations on behalf of our client based on his family and private life in the UK.

The Home Office took a year to consider the outstanding application, but eventually refused the application due to the submission of the false documents.

Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the judge found that there was no public interest in removal of the person but, to the contrary, he was a witness in the criminal proceedings against his previous legal representative initiated by the OISC.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Another Appeal Was Allowed Regarding the Rights of the Mother of the British Child


Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in an appeal heard by the First-Tier Tribunal regarding the refusal to issue a residence card to non-EEA national, mother of a British child. The appellant, a citizen of Belarus, had a Residence card valid until 2015 as an unmarried partner of an EEA national. Their relationship broke down leaving Appellant alone with her son from the relationship, who was British.

The Appellant’s application was dismissed as she failed to, in the view of the Home Office, provide enough evidence to demonstrate that (i) the child would be unable to reside in any EEA State with his EEA national father nor that (ii) she was a primary carer of their son.

Upon further evidence provided by Sterling & Law Associates LLP, on behalf of the client, along with some clarification regarding the misinterpretation of previous testimonies, the Judge found that there were enough reasons and proofs of sole dependency of the child upon the Appellant, as per Zambrano ruling.

The clarifications allowed to prove that the client was the sole carer of the British child after his father abandoned him and his mother and did not assume any responsibility for the care of their child. In this manner, the appeal was allowed as the Applicant fulfils the requirements under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, regulation 15.

Successful Appeal of the Dependant Adult Child


The Appellant, a national of Armenia, a dependant adult child (over 18) of a person present in the United Kingdom, was refused the grant to entry clearance for the purpose of settlement. The Sponsor (applicant’s father) and his daughter were separated from his son and wife in 2012 when they sought asylum in the UK. The appellant along with his mother applied for family reunion but only mother was issued a visa.

Despite the grant of entry clearance, the mother decided to stay in Armenia since the appellant needs daily care. Regardless of it, the Home Office decided to refuse his application since the Appellant was over 18 years of age and they thought that the Appellant did not submit sufficient evidence of dependency nor the evidence that the Appellant will be adequately maintained in the UK with no recourse to public funds.

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were instructed to represent the national of Armenia in his appeal at the First-Tier Tribunal. After considering the facts and evidence provided on behalf of the client, the judge found that there were reasons to believe that the exclusion of the appellant caused great conflict within their private and family lives, as well as the economic situation of both his Sponsor and sister would exempt the client from the burden of needing public funds.

Sponsor’s acts in Armenia saved many lives years ago but because he stood up against the powerful people in Armenia he had to leave the country leaving behind his wife and son. The First- tier Tribunal Judge looked not only on appellant’s circumstances but took into account Sponsor’s asylum claim and reasons why he fled Armenia.

Subsequently, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights conjointly with the United Kingdom Immigration Rules.


The Applicant, a citizen of Georgia, who has been married to an EEA National, was refused not once, but six times EEA Family Permit visa which he made without legal representation over the course of nearly two years. He had left the United Kingdom voluntary in 2015.

The first application was refused by the Home Office after they conducted a phone interview with the applicant. The first and then other 5 applications were refused based on the interview evidence provided during client’s first application.

Even though Entry Clearance officer had to consider each new application on its own merits, they failed to do so and refused all subsequent applications on the same ground.

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were instructed to make a seventh application of behalf of the client which was successful. After considering the facts and evidence provided by the client and six reasons for refusals Sterling & Law Associates LLP suggested the Georgian national to seek a Residence Permit in Estonia as a family member of a European Union national.

After a successful application, fresh compelling evidence and arguments brought by Sterling & Law Associates LLP, the Home Office issued a Family Permit to our client to join his wife in the UK.

“It was a huge task to challenge the Entry Clearance Officers after they have refused our client’s application six times and it was awarding not only for the client but for myself to “fight” for the visa for our client.” Daiga Barzdina

Daiga Barzdina

Successful Appeal on the basis of Article 8 Rights

wooden gavel and books on wooden table,on brown background
wooden gavel and books on wooden table,on brown background

The Appellants, citizens of Ukraine, were a married couple. They appealed against the Home Office decision to refuse their application for leave to remain on the grounds that it constituted a breach of their Article 8 right to a family and private life.

Background: The Appellants came to the UK in 2006 and remained unlawfully since. In 2015 they applied for leave to remain on the basis of their right to a family and private life they had established in the UK. As part of their application, they included their child, who was born in the UK, as a dependent.

The Respondent refused their application on the grounds that they did not qualify for leave to remain in accordance with the Immigration Rules, and that there were no exceptional circumstances arising in the case which would warrant consideration outside the Rules.

The Court held that that claim of the parents would fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 276ADE (1) of the Immigration Rules. However, as the child had been continuously resident in the UK for a period of at least 7 years at the date of the application, the child would be eligible for leave to remain if it can be shown that it would not be reasonable to expect her to leave the UK.

The Courted noted that, in coming to its decision, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration. In considering the evidence provided, the court determined the child had strong links to the UK and therefore it would not be reasonable for her to leave the UK.

Therefore, considering the appeal under Article 8 ECHR the Court held that it would be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of effective immigration control to force the family to leave the UK, and as such the appeal was allowed.

Appeal Allowed for Ukrainian National on Grounds of Family and Private Life

First-tier tribunal

The Appellant, a Ukrainian national, first entered the UK on a tier 4 student visa in October 2009. Once her visa expired in 2014 she applied for leave to remain on the basis of her family and private life.

The Appellant has a child from a previous relationship with a national of Saudi Arabia which has subsequently broken down.  The Appellant claimed that, due to her child being of mixed race she and her child would face discrimination if they were returned to Ukraine. Additionally, the appellant also asserted that, due to her child being born out of wedlock to an Arab Muslim man her family had disowned her and, as a result, she would not be able to properly reintegrate back into Ukraine.

The Court found in favour of the Appellant, noting that, based on the evidence provide, it would be unreasonable to return her to Ukraine. As a result, the appeal was allowed and she was granted leave.

Successful Appeal Regarding a Suspected Sham Marriage


The Appellant, a national of Ukraine, applied for, and was refused, a Residence Card as a family member (spouse) of an EEA national. The Appellant and his Sponsor, a Polish national, had previously been married but had subsequently divorced. The Appellant then returned to Ukraine for a few years before once again entering the UK. It was at this point that he and his Sponsor rekindled their relationship, and subsequently re-married.

However, it was the view of the Respondent that the marriage between the Appellant and his Sponsor was one of convenience. Contending that there was no documentary evidence to demonstrate cohabitation or that the relationship was genuine.

The Court held that, based on evidence provided, it was satisfied the Appellant was in a genuine relationship. The Court also noted that it is not unusual for couples to break up and subsequently re-marry. Therefore, the Appellant was held to be a family member of an EEA national for the purposes of Regulation 6 of the EEA Regulations.

Successful Asylum and Article 2& 3 ECHR Claim for Egyptian National

Tribunal Court Decision

The Appellant, and citizen of Egypt, appealed against the decisions to refuse to grant him asylum in the UK. The Appellant appealed on the grounds that he is a refugee and that to return him to Egypt would place the UK in breach of its obligations under Regulation 2 of the Refugee or Persons in need of International Protection Regulations 2006. The Appellant claims that he fears persecution on his return to Egypt on the basis that he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the basis of the evidence provided by Sterling and Law Associates, the Court found that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that the Appellant would be persecuted on return to Egypt. Therefore, the Court was satisfied that the Appellant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of Regulation 2.

Additionally, Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR fall within the Appellant’s asylum claim and, as such, removing him to Egypt would be contrary to the ECHR.

Appeal Allowed for Ukrainian on Proof Marriage was Genuine


Another successful appeal for Sterling and Law Associates at the First-Tier Tribunals.

The Appellant, a citizen of Ukraine, made an application for entry to the UK to join her husband – who has indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The application was refused on the basis that the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the relationship was genuine and subsisting, concluding that the marriage was entered into to facilitate the Appellant’s return to the UK. Sterling and Law Associates appealed the decision of the Home Office on the basis that the marriage was genuine.

The Court agreed, noting evidence demonstrating the husband’s ongoing visits to Ukraine since his wife left as evidence of a genuine and subsisting relationship. Additionally, in the opinion of the Court, the fact the couple had a child together was significant evidence of a genuine and subsisting relationship.

Therefore, The Court held that, on the balance of probabilities, the relationship between the Appellant and her husband was genuine and subsisting and therefore the appeal was allowed.