Tag: Appeal

DSC_9354

Successful Appeal against Refusal to Issue a Residence Card to Spouse of EEA National

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 application for residence card.

The appellant, a citizen of Colombia, entered the United Kingdom in April 2013 as a student. Later, he extended his visa for two more years. During the term of his visa he married a Lithuanian national and later applied for a residence card as a spouse of an EEA national under Regulations 7 and 17 of the Immigration Regulations 2016.

During consideration of the application, the couple was interviewed by the Home Office on their marriage and life together. The application was then refused on the basis that it had not been shown that the sponsor was working in the United Kingdom and, thus, was not recognised as a qualified person.

There are 5 status categories recognised as a qualified person: job-seeker, worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person or student.

In this case, no evidence of employment was provided at the date of application because the sponsor had just changed her job. The sponsor, however, had a long history of employment with some short intervals when she was unemployed but registered as a jobseeker. These particular issues were addressed at the hearing and sufficient evidence was provided on behalf of the client at the tribunal.

Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that the sponsor was a worker and that the evidence provided was credible and sufficient.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed on immigration grounds.

EEA Refusal Appeal Sterling & Law Associates LLP

Successful Appeal against Refusal to Issue Residence Card to Dependant Relative of EEA National

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 application for a residence card. The decision and reasons have been promulgated on 8 September 2017.

The appellant (non-EEA national) is a dependent relative of her son (EEA national). They have been living together and son has been taking care of his mother.

Mother’s application for a residence card was refused by the Home Office as they allegedly failed to provide sufficient evidence that her son was working in the United Kingdom, that she was dependent on him and that they actually resided together. These issues were challenged at the hearing and sufficient evidence was provided on behalf of the client in court.

The Judge asserted that in an EEA appeal he was required to determine it as at the date of the hearing not the date of the application to the Home Office.

At the appeal hearing the appellant adduced evidence of her son’s recently issued residence card which was treated as a confirmation that he has been exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom. In support of the claim other evidence of dependency and residency was accepted.

Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that the evidence provided was credible and sufficient and the issues raised in the refusal had been dealt with.

Therefore, the appeal under the Immigration (EBA) Regulations 2006 was allowed at the hearing.

Refusal Human Rights Immigration UK - photo by www.stillmiracle.com

Two refusals yet not a final decision: Successful appeal on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal at the First Tier Tribunal challenging a refusal of a clients application for a leave to remain.

The appellant, a citizen of Uzbekistan, entered the United Kingdom as a student in 2006 and she was granted further leave to remain in that capacity until 2013 when she was unable to demonstrate that she met English language requirements. The reason for this was that Home Office believed that the appellant used deception to pass her English language test.

She appealed against that decision and it resulted to be a further refusal with no right of appeal. She applied for permission to remain in the UK on the grounds of her family life with her husband, the UK citizen. She had been in the UK for 10 years, working, living a family life and also doing charitable work in her area together with her husband. Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that despite the fact that she used deception in her previous application for a student visa, it would be unreasonable and unjust for the appellant to be forced to come back to Uzbekistan. It would be wrong to intervene the family life of this couple.

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

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.