Author: Sterling Law


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:


Excellent news! The appeal regarding removal directions for our client was allowed!

Our client, a national of Pakistan, married an EU national who is exercising treaty rights in the UK and has a permanent residence here. After entering the UK with an EEA family permit our client successfully obtained an EEA residence card. A year into the marriage, the wife’s sister tragically passed away in Brazil leaving behind four minor children. Deeply affected by this loss, our client and his spouse decided to adopt these children. So our client’s wife went to Brazil for around 6 months to resolve various matters regarding the adoption.

At the date his wife was returning to the UK Immigration Officers came to our client’s home and interviewed him.

  • His request to postpone the interview (he was not feeling well) was ignored.
  • The immigration Officers did not make any notes regarding this request.
  • They did not pay attention to the fact that our client’s wife returned to the UK on the interview date and it would be useful to interview her as well before making any immigration decision.
  • Moreover, Immigration Officers even made several offensive Islamophobic remarks regarding our client’s appearance.

Relying on the interview records the Home Office made removal directions for our client on the grounds that

he misused the right to reside in the UK since his EEA sponsor left the UK just one month after his arrival in the UK and has not returned since (that was wrong).


Sterling Law successfully appealed this decision pointing out that there was a specific reason for the wife’s absence (adoption). The judge allowed the appeal and found that the Home Office decision was disproportionate.

Thanks to our lawyers Jekaterina Trubina and Shakir Hussain our clients are able to continue their family life in the UK and care for the wife’s sister children after adoption.


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:

A wife, who’s British husband suffers from cancer allowed to stay in the UK

Our client, a Brazilian national, came to the UK on a student visa. Although her applications for leave to remain were unsuccessful, she remained in the UK. She met her British husband several years later and after he was diagnosed with Lung Cancer. After that our client started to provide him with required daily care. Our client applied for leave to remain under the 10-year partner route. However, her application was refused on the basis that the ‘insurmountable obstacles’ requirement was not met.

What is ‘insurmountable obstacles’?

In accordance with para EX.2. Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, insurmountable obstacles are defined as ‘the very significant difficulties which would be faced by the applicant or their partner in continuing their family life together outside the UK and which could not be overcome or would entail very serious hardship for the applicant or their partner’.

Sterling Law successfully appealed the Home Office refusal. The Judge considered all the evidence that Sterling Law put forward. As a result, the court decision favoured our client.


There are genuine insurmountable obstacles in this appeal:

 The Sponsor has lung cancer

 He is still unwell since his operation and chemotherapy,

He needs very regular checks and follow-up appointments which could not take place in Brazil.

Neither the spouse nor the appellant has connections in Brazil AND  

…they have no means of making an income

BECAUSE the appellant has been living in the UK for around 17 years.


It would be not fair to remove our client from the UK. The harm to her private life would not be proportional.

Although our client overstayed her last granted leave for several years, she:

has no criminal convictions,

speaks very good English,

has integrated into life in the UK

is not dependent on the public purse.


Bearing in mind these facts and the amount of care our client provides to her British husband, the Judge found that

there is more than mere hardship in this appeal’,

and then went on to conclude that ‘I do not find it reasonable to expect the appellant to be removed from the UK’.

Thus, the appeal was allowed and our client was subsequently granted leave to remain in the UK by the Home Office.

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:

Successful ILR application as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur), accelerated route

Fantastic news for Sterling Law as an application for indefinite leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant (accelerated route) was successful.

Our client, who entered the UK as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant, had established a successful business in the UK which, as a result of his services, saw a net increase in gross income from business activity of at least £5 million during a 3-year continuous period. As a result, our client was eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 3 years of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.

Applications of this type can be very complex and great attention to details is required, especially considering the large amount of documents submitted in support of the application and the complexity of the Immigration Rules. However, due to the meticulous work by Oksana Demyanchuk and her team, our client faced no such problem and his application was approved by the Home Office without any issue.

Interested? Book your consultation now!


Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535


UK Visitor visa under 3 working days

Famous celebrity/ songwriter got her visitor visa to the UK just under 3 working days! Very rare type of application under the Visitor Visa Permitted Paid Engagement route was handled by our immigration lawyer Nollienne Alparaque! This type of visitor visa allows professional artists, entertainers, musicians or sportspersons to carry out an activity directly connected to their profession! If you are interested in obtaining a visitor visa to the UK, please do not hesitate to contact Sterling & Law.

You can schedule an appointment with Nollienne through this link. Alternatively, you can always contact her on or 020 7822 8535

Is birth certificate enough for the Home Office to prove your parenthood?

Our clients, who are nationals of Albania, have an adult daughter living in the UK with her EEA national husband. Two years after their daughter had successfully obtained a Residence Card (in accordance with Regulation 18 of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016), they applied for an EEA family permit to enter the UK and join their adult daughter. However, their applications were refused on the grounds that the Birth Certificate(provided as evidence of parental relationship) was not considered as adequate since it was issued less than 1 year ago.

In the Home Office’s refusal letters it was stated that THIS birth certificate is required support by either historical document regarding the parentage or even DNA test results.

The Sterling Law team successfully represented these clients in this out of country Appeal. After considering the Albanian procedure on issuing birth certificates and our client’s daughter statement explaining why they could not locate the original birth certificate, the Judge allowed the appeal, noting that:

The Entry Clearance Office ‘has shown a lack of knowledge about how this evidence is produced in either country, Albania or the UK’, and ‘failed either to carry out checks in Albania or to supply a document verification report, in order to question the reliability of’Albanian documents proving the parental relationship.

Furthermore, the Judge stressed that:

The burden of proof falls on the doubter. It is a burden that has clearly never been discharged by the respondent HO. On the contrary, the respondent decision maker has given no sign of abandoning an unreal view of how these matters are done’.

Thus, Sterling Law will now be applying for costs for the clients.

Please note, in accordance with Albanian law ‘when a person applies for a birth certificate, he or she is issued with a new one instead of a copy of the first birth certificate issued’. Thus, in theory, an Albanian can hold 10 such certificates (with identical information) if he or she has applied 10 times.

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



Crypto assets challenges: are tokens a security or utility?

Cryptoassets have attracted significant and growing attention from consumers, markets, governments, and regulators globally. Tokens, although not ‘rocket science’, is a quite complicated area even for businesses and individuals dealing with it.

In accordance with FCA Guidance currently there are three types of tokens:

  1. Exchange tokens(not issued or backed by any central authority and used as a means of exchange, usually outside the FCA regulation perimeter).
  2. Securitytokens(tokens with specific characteristics; classify as a Specified Investment like a share or a debt instrument; within the FCA regulation perimeter.
  3. Utility tokens: (support capital raising and/or the creation of decentralised networks; can be used or traded on the secondary market; usually outside the FCA regulation, although might meet the definition of e-money in certain circumstances, in which case – within the FCA regulation perimeter)

However, firms should note that 5th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive will be implemented into UK law by the end of 2019 and will extend the FCA regulation, as a result, all crypto exchange platforms will fall within an FCA Regulation.

Regardless of technology – if regulated crypto asset activities(e.g. Managing or advising on investments, including security tokens, dealing with warranties, etc.) are undertaken,  an appropriate FCA authorisation is required unless you are exempted. You will also need to ensure you have appropriate authorisation if your tokens constitute e-money.


E-money is electronically stored monetary value which is:

  • issued on receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment transactions;
  • accepted by a person other than the electronic money issuer ;
  • not excluded by regulation 3 of the Electronic Money Regulations 2011.

Exchange tokens like Bitcoin, Ether, and other equivalents are unlikely to represent e-money because, amongst other things, they are not usually centrally issued on the receipt of funds, nor do they represent a claim against an issuer.

Voting rights and security tokens

Tokens would classify as security tokens if they represent ownership or control (e.g. via voting rights), provide access to a dividend of company profits or the distribution of capital upon liquidation. However, this is not always the case as some tokens give voting rights on the direction without it being considered as control. For example, a token that provides the token holder with the right to vote on future ICOs the firm will invest in and no other rights would likely not be considered a share as the voting rights don’t confer control-like decisions on the future of the firm. It must be noted that whether a token that provide voting rightsrepresents a share in the capital of a body corporate or similar entity incorporated outside the UK will depend on the operation of the company and corporate law. In addition, negotiability on the capital markets can be an indicator of the transferable security nature of a token.

Decentralisationis also an important factor in determining whether a token is a security or utility. Decentralisation allows for trade directly with another party, using a blockchain to finalise the operation. The FCA approach is, the greater the degree of decentralisation the less likely it is that a token will confer enforceable rights and be a security.

Despite the fact that issuers of tokens don’t need to be authorised to issue their own securities, in the course of promoting their issuance, they may be advising on investments or undertaking other activities that may require FCA permission.

Sterling Law can provide tailored advice on the nature of your tokens and other crypto asset related matters. Our team can also obtain FCA Crypto team confirmation on the issue of whether specific tokens are security or not.



Employee, worker, self-employed, contractor, employer? Know your rights

Are you an employee, worker, self-employed or contractor? Not sure? It is important to understand the difference, as this may determine your rights.

You may think you know the answer to that question, but the answer may be different from what you imagine. Your position may be either better or worse than you think!

Why is that, and what am I talking about?

I am referring fundamentally to the difference in legal rights between those who are legally ‘employees’ and those who are ‘self-employed’. The former have certain rights such as the right to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy, maternity pay, holiday pay, statutory sick pay and others rights. The latter do not.

Just to make things more confusing, there is a category in the middle, classed as ‘workers’, who have some of these rights, but not others. Importantly, workers, do not have the right to claim unfair dismissal.

In a leading case in the Supreme Court on 11thJune 2018, it was decided that a plumber who had been working for Pimlico Plumbers Ltd apparently on a self-employed basis, paying with his own tax and NI, was still a worker for legal purposes. He was therefore entitled to holiday pay and sick pay This was mostly because of the degree of control exercised by the company over his work. He worked exclusively for Pimlico, and drove their van, and wore the company uniform whilst at work. It was important that he was not acting as an independent entrepreneur, touting for work for himself for his own account.

This case reflects other decisions in this area involving drivers for Uber, Deliveroo, and Addison Lee. In fact the Uber case was decided by the Court of Appeal in favour of the drivers in 2019 – they were classed as ‘workers’. A few other cases have been decided in favour of employers.

The crucial point of all of them, which should be borne in mind by businesses and individuals alike, is that the issue of ‘employment’ status is a factual decision in each case. It is a good idea to get professional advice about your position in good time, and have a reliable contract drawn up to reflect and solidify the true position.

However, even many lawyers who are not well-versed in employment law do not understand that even a contract cannot alter the legal position after the event, if the facts indicate that only a particular version of the legal position is correct on the facts.

We can help with either:

  • advising on how the law applies to your particular circumstances
  • drawing up a suitable agreement /contract
  • a dispute that has arisen which turns upon employment status

If you think your rights are being violated, or you would just to know more about what you can and cannot do, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free consultation.


Kuldeep S. Clair

Consultant Solicitor

Employment, Dispute Resolution and Litigation

+44 (0) 7484 61 4090

Interests of a child outweigh public interest of immigration control

Our client, a national of Kyrgyzstan, applied for leave to remain, however, her application was refused. Sterling Law successfully appealed this refusal outside the Immigration Rules on the Human Rights grounds. The main reason for refusal was our client’s poor immigration history. Our client, who had previously lived lawfully in the UK for several years (on a visitor visa, EEA residence card, etc.) found herself in a situation when she could not apply for the next visa under the European rules. She was heavily pregnant and vulnerable which resulted in her making a false asylum claim using a false identity card (which was refused and she became an overstayer).

However, our client established a strong private and family life in the UK. Our client’s mother is in the UK and has British nationality. She also has a UK born child who suffers from Autism who has been living in the UK for more than 10 years, speaks the English language only and requires special care.

Considering all the circumstances of the case, and applying relevant law (MA (Pakistan) & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 705; ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4), the Judge found that:

Although very significant breaches of immigration laws are involved in this case, the interests of this child outweigh the public interest in the removal of his mother.

Thus, the Appeal was allowed and our client, not only obtained legal status in the UK but also got a chance to remain with her child and continue to provide him with necessary support and love.


Oksana Demyanchuk


Tel. 020 7822 8535


Michael Carter


Tel. 020 7822 8535



Is your case similar? Book a consultation with us and we will help.