Year: 2019

Spouse Visa – Unmarried partner refusal withdrawn by Home Office prior to appeal

Our client, a national of the United States of America, approached Oksana Demyanchuk and Michael Carter to apply for leave to enter the UK as the unmarried partner of a British citizen.

The couple had met many years back in the USA and started a romantic relationship. By the time the Applicant applied for leave to enter the UK, the relationship had been ongoing for well over 2 years, however, the couple had only lived together for a period short period less than that required by the Home Office.

The Immigration Rules currently state the following with regard to unmarried partners:

295A. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement as the unmarried or same-sex partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement is that:

  • (a)(i) the applicant is the unmarried or same-sex partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement and the parties have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more,
  • […]


Furthermore, Home Office guidance on the topic of unmarried partners states the following:

‘Living together’, should be applied fairly tightly, with a couple providing evidence that they have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more.


Despite this, Applicant and Sponsor, out of principle, did not want to marry for the sake of obtaining a visa and decided to make an application. It was submitted to the Home Office by Oksana Demyanchuk that their relationship was sufficiently serious as to be akin to marriage and that discretion should have been applied to waive the requirement of 2 years’ cohabitation prescribed for in the Immigration Rules.

The couple submitted evidence to the Home Office that their relationship was sufficiently serious so as to be equivalent as marriage in all but name. This evidence included evidence of the couple’s trips to share holidays with each other and references from family members and friends confirming the genuineness and seriousness of the relationship.

The initial application was refused on the basis that the couple did not satisfy the co-habitation requirement, although it was accepted that the relationship was genuine and subsisting and had been for many years.

The couple duly appealed the decision to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC), continuing to argue that the inflexible requirement of 2 years’ co-habitation is inconsistent with Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.

The couple was able to provide an enormous volume of documentary evidence of their relationship and submitted a bundle consisting of sum 974 pages in support of their contention that the decision to refuse our client leave to remain was unlawful.

On the day of the hearing, the Home Office representative informed that, in light of the arguments advanced and supporting evidence provided by Oksana Demyanchuk, they accept the submission and are withdrawing the decision to refuse the application with a view to granting leave. The result is that our client will now be granted leave to remain to continue to enjoy her family life with her partner.

Sterling Law are please the justice prevailed in the end and that our clients can now continue their life together without compromising on their principles.

You can contact Oksana and Michael:

Oksana DemyanchukEmail:

Tel. 020 7822 8535






Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Book a consultation here.

Read more about our successful cases here.


PK: Court of Appeal remits Ukrainian draft evader asylum claim back to the Upper Tribunal

Our client, PK, entered the UK unlawfully in 2013 and claimed asylum in 2014 upon facing deportation.

However, numerous asylum claims have been rejected, the call-up notices received were considered fraudulent documents, and PK faced removal.

PK appealed to the First-tier Tribunal which considered two main issues:

Could the military service in Ukraine involve acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct defined by international law?

If the appellant was to receive a prison sentence, would the conditions there breach Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights?

The Tribunal considered such acts to be unlikely, but not impossible, and found that the most likely punishment for draft evasion in Ukraine would be fine. The appeal was therefore dismissed, as the harm feared would not be sufficiently serious to breach Article 3 of the ECHR.

The main question we raised in the Court of Appeal was whether punishment for draft evasion must reach minimum severity in order for a draft evader to be considered a refugee. We also argued there is an inconsistency between the Upper Tribunal and the Secretary of State definition of “minimum severity”.

The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the Upper Tribunal.

Sterling Law instructed Anthony Metzer QC and Julian Norman to represent the client.

You can read the full article here.

Ruslan Kosarenko
Senior Partner



 Nozima Rakhimjonova




Nadiya Pylypchuk

Trainee Solicitor

Bringing a child to the UK under sole responsibility route

Our client is a child living in Uzbekistan. She wishes to come to the UK to live with her mother, who is already settled in the UK. However, our client’s father still lives in the country of her origin. Most of the time, cases where only one parent is settled in the UK, it is really challenging to prove that the parent in question has sole responsibility for their child’s upbringing, especially when the other parent is still alive. Such cases, therefore, are associated with high refusal rates and costly and time-consuming appeal processes.

The greatest challenge in such cases is providing sufficient evidence that a parent indeed has sole responsibility for the child.

Oksana Demyanchuk and Michael Carter have advised on the required evidence to our client, prepared and submitted the application on the applicant’s behalf following which Indefinite Leave to Enter was granted in the first instance, as the Entry Clearance Officer was satisfied that the mother has sole responsibility for her child’s upbringing in light of all the evidence provided.

Oksana and Michael provided evidence to show that the child is not leading an independent life, and they provided evidence that the mother has been continuously providing financial and emotional support to the child. Furthermore, they showed that the father has no bearing in regard to the child’s upbringing, and the child’s grandparents do not have control over the child’s daily decisions.

Since the Home Office did not refuse our client’s application, she has effectively saved her time and money by not appealing the Home Office’s decision in case they refused her application.

Our client can now happily join her mother and able to live in the UK.

If you have a sole responsibility case, do not hesitate to contact Sterling Law.

Sterling Law is recognised by the Legal 500, and The Times.

Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Book a consultation here.

Read more about our successful cases here.


A family finally gained their leave to remain under private and family life grounds

It is distressing to any asylum seeker to receive a letter from the court declaring that you have exhausted your appeal rights. After gathering numerous documents, attending countless court hearings and paying costly legal fees, you are left with little possibility of getting your legal status in the UK. When a person exhausts his appeal rights, it usually means that the Home Office will view you as having no right to stay in the UK and will subsequently force you to leave the country.

Our clients entered the UK in 2001. In 2003, the family’s asylum claim was refused by the Home Office and they sent a letter stating that they do not have any basis to remain in the UK anymore. However, the Home Office failed to enforce the removal of the family for 17 years!

The Facts and Home Office Decision

Our clients applied for an asylum claim in 2003 and an EEA residence card in 2016. All of their application was refused with no right of appeal. In one last attempt to gain legal status in the UK, the family applied for leave to remain under the basis of private and family life under Article 8 ECHR in 2019. However, the Home Office refused their application on the grounds that they failed to engage Article 8 as they “would not face very significant obstacles to their integration into their home country”.

The Home Office submitted that:

  1. The father is a professional builder and used to work in a construction firm in their home country. The Home Office finds that it will not be difficult for him to find a job in back there given his previous experience.
  2. The mother is an economist in her country of origin. Home Office stated that she would be able to re-integrate in the society taking regard that she previously worked there as a bookkeeper and a shop manager.
  3. The son is suffering from chronic depression since 2014. Home Office insisted that medical assistance would be available to him anyways in the home country.

Sterling Law and the Court’s Decision

Our lawyers in Sterling Law argued that the family would be met with very significant obstacles to their integration into their home country under Article 8 ECHR.

Sterling Law submitted that:

  1. The father will not find any work as he is already 58 years old. Despite his skills, employers in his home country usually hire builders who are under forty.
  2. It will be difficult for the mother to find employment. Notwithstanding her economic background, she has not been able to keep up to date with the various social and economic changes that have taken place back home since her arrival in the UK in 2001.
  3. There is a risk that the son’s mental health can suffer more as the attitude to mental health in his home country and depression is different from that in the UK. His home country does not view depression as an illness, unlike in the UK, where support from doctors and medical professionals are available.
  4. Our clients have no family ties back home. The 17-year period the family spent in the UK forged new relationships in the UK and broken down all connections in their country of origin.

The First-Tier Tribunal rejected all of the Home Office’s submission. The court accepted that our clients would face significant difficulties, both social and economic, attempting to reintegrate into society.

We are very happy for our clients. Their immigration status in the UK has been precarious for 17 years, but Sterling Law made it possible for them to settle legally in the UK.

If you are trying to seek asylum or bring a human rights claim, Sterling Law is a Legal 500 firm, acknowledged by its expertise in dealing with complex Immigration and Human rights cases.


Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Book a consultation here.

Read more about our successful cases here.

Domestic worker successfully enforced her employment rights against her manipulative employer even after her work visa expired

The general rule is that it’s illegal to work for an employer after the employees working visa has expired. The employee will no longer be able to bring a breach of employment contract claim against his employer due to the defence of ‘illegality’ of contract.

The case of Okedina v Chikale [2019] EWCA Civ 1393 held that there are some circumstances in which an employment contract can still be enforceable despite breaching an immigration rule.

The Facts

The claimant, Ms Chikale, and the respondent, Mrs Okedina, are both Malawian nationals. The claimant was granted a 6-month visa to work as a nanny for the respondent. Little did the claimant know, her visa was granted based on false information given by the respondent. The respondent goes further by letting the claimant stay and work in the UK even after her visa expired. Few months after, the claimant is earning £200 per month. The respondent dismissed the claimant after she requested more money.


The respondent’s defence of illegality was denied by the court. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the claimant was innocent the whole time, and she was not aware that she has been working illegally.

In many cases, the balance of power in an employment relationship often tip in favour of the employer rather than the employee hence why vicious employers exploit workers by depriving them of their rights often becoming victims of trafficking.

If you think that your employer is depriving you of your employment rights, immediately contact our lawyers in Sterling Law, a Legal 500 firm based in London.

Contact us via:

+44 7 305 966 531

Book a consultation here.

Read about our successful cases here.

Home Office reconsider their refusal of our client’s ILR application

A freedom of information request shows in 2018 that the Upper Tribunal rejected 900 out of 1,235 referrals for further appeal made by the Home Office. It means 75% of the total asylum seekers and migrants who wants to stay in the UK are put to an immeasurable amount of stress and trauma from the lengthy and expensive court processes.

Our client, a Russian national, entered the UK as a student in 2006. She has been living in the UK for 13 years. Since then, she has been studying, received her PhD and made a positive contribution to the community by paying her tax contributions and by volunteering in various charity work.

In 2019, she applied herself for ILR (indefinite leave to remain) based on her 10-years long residence. However, Home Office refused her application on the grounds that for a brief period during her stay in the UK, she had broken her 10 years’ continuous lawful residence.

She then approached Sterling Law, and in particular Oksana Demyanchuk, to appeal the Home Office’s decision in the First-Tier Tribunal (IAC).

Two days prior to the hearing, the Home Office wrote the Tribunal and our client stating that they are withdrawing their decision against our client’s case with a view to granting our client.

They further stated in the letter that:

“…Upon reviewing the applicant’s bundle, the SOS’s decision for the appellant is no longer sustainable and the appellant’s case will need to be reconsidered with a view to grant

It is very rare for the Home Office to withdraw their decisions, however, due the efforts made by Oksana Demyanchuk and Michael Carter in preparing our client’s bundles, Home Office’s decided that the original decision was unsustainable and saw no other option than to withdraw it.

If you have an immigration case that you want to discuss, Sterling Law is a Legal 500 firm which specialises in Immigration and Human Rights cases. We are proud to have been part of countless success stories from our clients in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at

Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Or book a consultation here.

Read more about our successful cases here.


So, mathematical equations are not protected by copyright, because they were created for public use. It would be unfair towards everyone and it will create a monopoly! Moreover, it will restrict the free-flow of information and can be used by only the owner. Every person should have an opportunity to use mathematical equations for personal or business purposes. The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used. The key point is that you can be inspired by the form of expression, but not an idea of the expression. Unfortunately, it is often becoming difficult to see the difference between the idea and expression. When the expressions are inseparable from the ideas, those expressions are not protected.

Thus, if you would like to create a math book, you can use mathematical equations that are all available for you. However, be careful with personal diagrams and illustrations because they are protected under copyright law. By adding an original idea, it can be protected under copyright law.

In Eastern Book Company & Ors v. D.B. Modak & Anr, the court set up the two condition:

  1. Sweat of Brow; and
  2. Modicum of Creativity.

Meeting these criteria, the work will be considered to be ‘original‘ and will be protectable under the copyright.

Please do not hesitate to contact us.

By Katsiaryna Pazniak

You can book an appointment here.


Marriage of convenience allegations withdrawn by the Home Office

We received the above letter today from the Home Office Presenting Officers Unit concerning our client’s appeal. The central issue was an allegation by the Home Office that our client was in a marriage of convenience. Our client’s visa was revoked and she was issued with removal directions, requiring to leave the United Kingdom immediately.
In the letter, the Home Office has confirmed that their own decision is not sustainable and they have no chance to succeed. This has happened because of the robust representation of Sterling Law.
Yet again this again confirms that even the Home Office makes mistakes and you should always fight for your rights. In our client’s matter, we will now be seeking a wasted costs order against the Home Office because we believe that their actions were both unlawful and unreasonable. If the wasted costs application is successful, our client will recover the legal costs they have had to incur as a result of the atrocious decision by the Home Office.
Sterling Law is a highly experienced firm that deals with various areas of law and was recently included in the Legal 500. Sterling Law aims at bringing every case to a successful end, regardless of the complexity and give hope to those who already lost it.
Our lawyers deal with challenging cases daily, our expertise and knowledge mean our clients are never alone in their matter. We defended our clients’ rights and hold our clients’ hand every step of the way.
We often make the impossible possible.


Jekaterina Trubina

Contact us on

+44 020 7822 8535

+44 7 305 966 531

Or book an appointment here.





Sterling Law is now a Legal 500 firm

We are proud to be included in the Legal 500 rating. Simply put, Legal 500 highlights the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice.

According to Legal 500:

Sterling Law advises on all types of UK visa and sponsor licence issues for a range of corporate and individual clients. The team is adept at handling PBS applications, which includes advice on sponsored migrants, highly skilled migrants, entrepreneurs and investors.

The team also advises on human rights-related cases at initial application and appeal levels and has experience in a variety of other cases including asylum, protection and family reunion cases. Ruslan Kosarenko is praised for his abilities as a ‘dynamic problem-solver’.


This team is unusually responsive and extremely well organised.

The team is dedicated, hardworking and brings a positive attitude towards even the most difficult case.

Ruslan Kosarenko takes a ‘can-do’ approach to cases and gets excellent results.


Advised on the humanitarian protection of a Filipino national who divorced her former partner from Phillipines and faced persecution and death threats her home country due to the bigamy case filed by her former husband.

Represented a Brazilian client and protected the best interests of her child in separation case.

Advised on successful Investor visa applications after an initial refusals.

Contact us to resolve your legal matter:

+44 020 7822 8535

+44 7 305 966 531

Or book an appointment with us here.

Read about our successful cases here.

Upper Tribunal held that prison sentence does not break integral links of an EEA national in the UK

In recent years, EEA nationals have been looking for a silver lining concerning the protections confined unto them by relevant EU Regulations. CJEU judgements, combined with domestic law, succeeded in muddying the waters in providing clear clarification to the rights of EEA nationals. This is particularly true for EEA nationals who have been seeking protection against expulsion by a Host Member state as a result of a previous prison sentence.

A recent decision in the Upper Tribunal provided a start in clarifying whether a person who served a sentence of imprisonment breaks his 10-year period of continuous residence in the UK under the Citizen Directive. Thus, excluding him from entitlement to enhanced protection against deportation.

The Facts

The Appellant left Poland and entered the UK in 2007. He had been residing in the UK for more than eleven years at the date of the decision to deport him on 5 July 2018. He has six convictions for various drink driving offences between 5 September 2011 and 18 May 2018. He received three custodial sentences. He also received a total of 280 days of imprisonment sentence but only spent actual time in prison for 123 days.

The question for the judge was whether the Appellant’s period of imprisonment (123 days) was sufficient to break his integrative links with the UK such that he was not entitled to “imperative grounds” enhanced protection under Regulation 27(4) Immigration (EEA) Regulation 2016.

First-tier Tribunal Decision 

The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal the deportation order made against him.

Unfortunately, the First Tribunal judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.

The judge mainly used the authority in, Warsame v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentWarsame held that periods of imprisonment are excluded when calculating the 10- year period of residence and that it also breaks the continuity of residence under Regulation 27(4).

In the Appellant’s case, he did not have ten years’ continuous residence between 2007 (when he first arrived in the UK) and 28 February 2016 (when he was first imprisoned). If he had established ten years’ continuous residence before his imprisonment, it would also be necessary for him to show that integrating links with the UK had not been broken by imprisonment.

Since the Appellant acquired rights of permanent residence in March 2015, he was given medium protection against expulsion under Regulation 27(3). Namely, the deportation order must be justified on serious grounds of public policy and public security.

Appellant’s appeal and Upper Tribunal Decision 

The Appellant appealed against the First-tier Tribunal decision on the grounds of error of law.

He argued that he is entitled to the highest level of protection against expulsion under Regulation 27(4)(a).

He argued that he does not need to establish ten years’ continuous residence before his imprisonment. He only needs to prove whether he had forged the necessary integrative links over the nine years prior to imprisonment and whether the periods of imprisonment (123 days of actual imprisonment) were sufficient to break the continuity of residence (over ten years) at the date of the relevant decision.

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.

The Upper Tribunal held that the correct authority to apply in this case is not Warsame but B v Land Baden-Wurttemberg (C-316/16) and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vomero (C‑424/16). These are the Upper Tribunal’s findings:

  • It is an error of law for the First-tier Tribunal only to consider the totality of the sentences of imprisonment (280 days), instead of the actual time spent in the prison (123 days).
  • The case Baden-Wüttermberg and Vomero is clear to state that in deciding whether the Appellant is entitled to enhanced protection, there must be an overall assessment of the Appellant’s integration in the UK. Furthermore, time in imprisonment does not automatically break his integral links in the UK.
  • The Upper Tribunal conducted an overall assessment of the Applicant’s integration in the UK. They have taken into account the Appellant’s
  1. Use of his Treaty rights
  2. Period of residence in the UK
  3. The nature and seriousness of his offence
  4. Offending behaviour
  5. Circumstances in which the offence was committed
  6. Period of imprisonment
  7. Evidence that he may be developing some insight into the seriousness of his past conduct

Taken in to account the factors above, the Upper Tribunal is convinced that his period of imprisonment of 123 days taken together with the Appellant’s offending behaviour is not sufficient to break his integrative links with the UK such that it could not be said that he had not acquired ten years’ continuous residence in the UK.

The Upper Tribunal found that the Appellant is entitled to enhanced protection against expulsion and his criminal convictions are not sufficiently serious to meet the imperative grounds of public policy threshold.


This case is progress in clarifying EEA national’s rights under the Citizen Directive. It acts as a foundation to future cases which concerns the breakage of an EEA national’s integral links in the UK. Taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by an EEA national, a few months in prison is not enough to say that he does not deserve the right for enhanced protection confined under the Citizens’ Directive.

Are you in a similar situation? You can book a consultation with us here.

You can also contact us using the details below:

+44 020 7822 8535

+44 7 305 966 531

Read about our other successful cases here.