Day: June 25, 2019


Our client, an EEA national, came to the UK with his family less than 5 years ago. He was diagnosed with mental health conditions, as a result of which he committed the robbery whilst his mental health was unstable. Our client spent some time in custody which was a difficult experience for him. When he was released, he engaged well with the Probation service and drug agency (since he also had a history of substance abuse). Moreover, he took support from his Church and family to improve and stabilize his mental health.

However, the Home Office decided to deport our client relying on the public policy grounds (Regulation 23 (6) and 27 (5) 2016 regulations).


The public policy and public security requirements of the United Kingdom include restricting rights otherwise conferred by these Regulations in order to protect the fundamental interests of society, and where a relevant decision is taken on grounds of public policy or public security it must also be taken in accordance with the following principles—

(a) the decision must comply with the principle of proportionality;

(b) the decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the person concerned;

(c) the personal conduct of the person must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, taking into account past conduct of the person and that the threat does not need to be imminent;

(d) matters isolated from the particulars of the case or which relate to considerations of general prevention do not justify the decision;

(e) a person’s previous criminal convictions do not in themselves justify the decision;

(f) the decision may be taken on preventative grounds, even in the absence of a previous criminal conviction, provided the grounds are specific to the person.


Sterling Law successfully represented interests of the client in the Appeal. Notwithstanding the facts of poor representation of our client by his previous lawyer and numerous detentions since November 2018, Sterling Law managed to achieve a positive result in this case.

The Judge allowed the appeal noting that

  • removal of our client would be disproportionate and would cause potential for relapse;
  • there is a low risk of re-offending;
  • our client does NOT represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.


If you or your family member has been detained or is facing deportation, contact us for professional legal advice:

+44 (0) 207 822 8535


Excellent news! After seven years of fighting with the Home Office, our client obtained Permanent Residence.


Our client, a national of Belarus, has been residing in the UK for more than five years as the family member of her EEA national husband. They had a genuine family relationship before their separation. Our client even became a stepmother to her husband’s younger children, collecting the youngest from school regularly and taking her to the dentist.

Having overstayed her visa for agricultural work many years before, upon entering into a relationship with her husband, she applied numerous times for a residence card and later for a permanent residence to obtain legal immigration status in the UK. However, the Home Office refused all her applications stating that our client’s marriage is a marriage of convenience.

The Home Office relied on an attempted home visit and neighbours’ interview when the appellant and her husband were not in. However, disclosure of records from that visit resulted in the ‘unsigned, undated typed note’ confirming that no proper interview (that can be used as an evidence of marriage of convenience) actually occurred.


Our client’s first appeal, lodged six years ago, was dismissed because the judge found that she was in a marriage of convenience. Nonetheless, she refused to give up and continued fighting for her right to live in the UK.

By the time of the latest appeal regarding our client’s permanent residence application, our client’s relationship with her husband had ended and she was undergoing divorce proceedings. However, the Judge was satisfied that the marriage had been genuine all along and our client’s marriage had endured for over five years, thereby resulting in our client acquiring permanent residence.


Sadovska and Another v SSHD [2017] UKSC 54:

If the appellant was not party to a marriage of convenience, she acquires permanent residence pursuant to paragraph 15(1)(b) of the 2016 Regulations.


Thus, the Judge allowed the appeal noting that:

          Although the marriage undoubtedly provides our client with an immigration advantage, this does not result in its characterisation as a marriage of convenience.


Similar immigration problem? Do you believe the Home Office made a wrong decision? Contact our experienced lawyers for professional advice.

Book consultation here:

Or book a free 15 min phone call with us!

Or just email us: