Category: Company News

Spouse Visa

Sterling Law Influence Home Office’s Investor Visa Policy Change

On 15 June 2018, the Home Office announced introduction of the new changes to the Immigration Rules which will affect a number of categories including Tier 1 Investor Visa.

The changes address our previous requests for clarification of the Immigration Rules. Owing to our persistence on getting the Home Office’s business helpdesk to clarify whether invested bonds from a bank loan can be used to score points as collateral for a further loan for a Tier 1 investor, the Home Office has now incorporated this into the new statement of changes.

It is, perhaps, not exactly the results that we hoped for when making a request on such a clarification, but the Home Office has been prompted due to our team’s unyielding actions to ensure that the scope of the Immigration Rules have everything covered.

Now, the answer to whether invested bonds from a bank loan can be used to score points as collateral is that it is not permissible for a migrant to use funds invested in bonds as collateral for further loans. The Home Office makes reference to paragraph 61A with the requirement of the money to be under the migrant’s control and therefore, excludes money that a loan has been secured against.

Thus, the following changes are introduced to the Tier 1 Investor Visa rules:

  • Applicants are required to maintain their investments. While the investors (applicants) may withdraw interest and dividend payments generated by their qualifying investments from their portfolios, they may not do so if these were generated before the applicant purchased the portfolio.
  • As evidence of their investment, applicants must currently submit portfolio reports signed off by a financial institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. A technical change is being made to require institutions to confirm that the funds have only been invested in qualifying investments, and that no loan has been secured against those funds.
  • This change will put a further obligation on financial firms to scrutinise the suitability of applicants’ investments, in addition to their own due diligence.

Aliya Rimshelis, Corporate Immigration Adviser, raised this issue before the Home Office on behalf of Sterling Law and assisted in filling a gap which previously existed.

These changes to the Immigration Rules will come into effect on 6 July 2018.

More information is available in the statement of changes.

For more details, please feel free contact our please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, by e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

New UK start-up visa introduced by the Home Office

The new visa route was announced by the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, during London Tech Week on 13 June 2018. According to the statement, the UK start-up visa route will widen the applicant pool of talented entrepreneurs and make the visa process faster and smoother for entrepreneurs coming to the UK. It will replace a visa route which was exclusively for graduates, opening it up to a wider pool of talented business founders.

People who want to start a business in the UK will be able to apply for a new “start-up” visa, the Home Secretary has announced. 

According to the Home Secretary, new start-up visa will help to ensure that the UK continues to attract the best global talent and maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading destination for innovation and entrepreneurs.

It will require applicants to have acquired an endorsement from a university or approved business sponsor, including accelerators. This start-up visa has been designed following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee and feedback from the tech sector and other stakeholders.

This initiative builds on other recent reforms to the visa system – including doubling the number of visas available on the Exceptional Talent route to 2,000 per year – and shows the government’s commitment to making the UK a dynamic, open, globally-trading nation.

The expanded UK start-up visa route will launch in Spring 2019, further details will be announced in due course.

Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, by e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Successful Application for Administrative Review of Refusal in Tier 1 Investor Visa Extension

Our team is delighted to share the latest news that our client’s application for administrative review of the refusal of  leave to remain a s a Tier 1 Investor has been successful.

Administrative review is a procedure that allows your visa application to be reviewed if it has been refused.

The administrative review is carried out by a different department of the Home Office. It should be successful if any procedural errors made by an original decision maker will be identified. If that is the case, the original decision will be withdrawn and your visa application reconsidered.

Tier 1 Investor Visa Extension

The Applicant is a Kazakh national, who has been issued with entry clearance as a Tier 1 Investor, entered the UK with her dependants. On the expiration of her visa, she applied for further leave to remain as a Tier 1 Investor, with her dependants applying for an extension of their leave. This application was refused on several grounds.

  1. Firstly, the Respondent was not satisfied that the funds loaned to the Applicant were under her control in the UK, which was against the provisions of paragraphs 2, 6 and 11 of the loan agreement. This allegation was founded upon the basis that the requirement of the Applicant to invest the loan in an Authorised Investment Destination (AID) Company was not satisfied, thus resulting an agreement to ‘lose its force’. The Respondent assumed that the reference to an ‘AID Company’ must refer to a specific company. However, this was not specified in the loan agreement and the Respondent’s claim was argued to be unreasonable, whist lacking any objective evidence.
  2. Secondly, the Respondent was not convinced that the Applicant’s investment was This was argued to be outside of the Respondent’s concern with the regards to the merits of the investment. The investment of 1 million pounds in the company is one of the main requirements to obtain a Tier 1 Investor Visa, which was done in accordance with the rules and regulations according to the facts.
  3. Thirdly, the Respondent referred to the Articles of Association of the company, alleging that its provisions prevented the funds from being under the Applicant’s control and disposable in the UK. However, the Articles of Association guaranteed that the funds would be redeemed to the Applicant, making them consistent with the fact that the Applicant had a sufficient control over them.
  4. Finally, the Respondent alleged that the Applicant’s investment was not within the category of paragraph 65(b) of Appendix A, namely ‘open-ended investment companies, investment trust companies, investment syndicate companies, or pooled investment vehicles’. However, no clear evidence was provided regarding this matter. The Respondent was concerned about a disclosure of the company’s principle business by its Accountants. This evidence was argued to be insufficient to assert the company’s activities at the time of the investment. Additionally, the Respondent referred to the information given by the Applicant during her interview, particularly that the Applicant exercises powers to control the company’s future investments, which was again argued to be lacking any reasonable basis on which to determine the applicability of paragraph 65(b) of Appendix A.

Success of the Application

Sterling Law, defined against all odds, provided all the necessary arguments in favour of the Applicants. Accordingly, the Administrative Review was successful on the grounds of paragraph AR2.11(d) of the Immigration Rules, particularly that the ‘original decision maker failed to apply the Secretary of State’s relevant published policy and guidance in relation to the application’.

The arguments presented by the Home Office authorities were made on the basis of their subjective and unreasonable assumptions, rather than relying on the objective evidence.

This is but a mere example of how passionate and dedicated Sterling Law is to fight for a just and unbiased bureaucracy.

Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, by e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Home Office Unreasonable Conduct Incites Award of Costs Claims

The award of costs, though not a relatively new scheme is one that has recently had its scope expanded thanks to a court decision made at the end of last year. This time with an expert panel of senior judges stepping in to give their determination on whether Home Office officers can be held to account for unreasonable behaviour by way of an order of costs.

In the last few years, it has become unclear whether an order of costs can be made against Home Office officers who are not considered regulated legal representatives per se.

However, owing to Awuah (No2) an unpublished follow-up to its predecessor, Awuah and Ors [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC), the Tribunal has positively determined that awards of costs can be made against the Home Office. Though, this power, granted by Rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 and Rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) Rules 2008, remains a power to be exercised with significant restraint. Perhaps a necessary constraint to prevent a colossal flood gate from being opened in claims against the Home Office. Nonetheless, it remains to be said, I am quite sure there are many.

Case Study

Sterling Law have recently acted as legal representatives to the Appellant – a Ghanaian citizen, refused a visa as a partner of a British citizen by the Home Office. The Home Office had claimed – as they too often do in assuming that in such cases sham marriages are predominantly made in order to obtain a British visa – that the appellant’s marriage was not a genuine and subsisting one. This, of course, turned out to be a false allegation and as the appellant’s legal representatives, we served several documentary evidences including DNA reports during the appeal in April which strongly contradicted such claims.

The Ghanaian appellant continues to be engaged in a genuine marriage and has borne a young child with his British wife, which overwhelmingly indicates an individual’s serious and sincere commitment to the development of his family life. A commitment that also entails the creation of the individual’s sustaining and long-lasting family-unit.  As such, all of this detail was assertively provided to the Home Office in evidence of the Appellant’s relationship with his wife and child. However, the Home Office not only and resoundingly failed to make a proper assessment of this case in our submission of the initial application, but there were also several incidents of negligence and unreasonable behaviour displayed throughout the duration of the appeal.

As the Tribunal judge noted in the Appellant’s decision, the Home Office officer neglected to file important documentation in compliance with the procedural rules of the Tribunal prior to the Appellant’s appeal hearing. Notably, incidents which do not fully comply with the rules that the Tribunal has in place for all parties to a legal proceeding, can often prove to be an obstacle to the progress of the case. As such, the nature of this documentation was Home Office interview records that the Home Office used almost exclusively as their evidence against the appellant to incriminate and delegitimise his credibility. Considering the weight of this evidence, which allegedly fortified the Home Office’s position against the appellant, they absurdly ‘forgot’ to submit these records on time for the appeal hearing and despite several letters sent by us prompting them to do so. These records were only properly acquiesced to both Sterling & Law and the Tribunal upon the Home Office representative being found to carry it on-file on the date of the hearing.

Unfortunately, this is not all of such irresponsible acts to have taken place during the appellant’s appeal.

On the day of the hearing, the Home Office had also foregone their obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal by failing to turn up without any explanation or prior notice for the absence. This is despite being appropriately notified of the hearing date well in advance by the Tribunal. Positively, the appeal continued to proceed despite this setback. Therefore, it proves how the Home Office continues to show much disregard and indifference for a large number of the immigration cases it oversees. Even more so in this case where the Home office has clearly shown irresponsibility, unreasonable and even unprofessional conduct that does nothing but further damage the image of the Home Office and its officers.

Appeal Success

Sterling Law proudly states that the Tribunal has granted this appeal on the proper consideration of all the evidence we have provided as the Ghanaian appellant’s legal representatives. The appeal has subsisted against the Home Office upon the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), preventing the unnecessary interference to the extant family life and private life between the Ghanaian appellant, his British wife and their child. An interference which is only really justified and serves as the exception and not norm in the event it contravenes with the law, is for the legitimate public end necessary in a democratic society, or is an interference which is ardently necessary to protect the economic well-being of the country.

Finally, this case has shown clear faults in the way the Home Office operates. It is clearly unlawful for the Home Office not to have full regard for the appellant’s circumstances before deciding whether to exercise their discretion in favour or against granting the applicant’s entry into the country. It also exudes of unreasonable conduct when the Home Office either fail to consider all the documentary evidence submitted to them or fail to appropriately present evidence as per the rules and regulations of the Tribunal, or both. Such as in this case.

As such, to continue to demerit such acts of negligence by the Home Office, Sterling Law will be pursing more relentlessly, claims for the award of Costs where cases are, prima facie, handled with unreasonable conduct.

As a law firm specialising in immigration and human rights, we continuously strive to protect the best interests of our clients.

Workshop Invitation: Employing Foreign Workers and Sponsor Licence Pitfalls, 27 June 2018

Sterling Law and Drystone Chambers invite for the workshop for the UK employers and business owners to discuss practical issues of “Employing Foreign Workers in the UK, Sponsor Licence Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them”. The workshop will be held at the office of Drystone Chambers on Wednesday, 27 June 2018.

Date and time:

Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 6.00 PM (followed by Q&A and wine reception)

Location:

Drystone Chambers, 35 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JH (MAP)

In order to hire a worker from outside of the EEA countries, the UK employer needs to obtain a Sponsor Licence from the Home Office. Although the process of obtaining a Sponsor Licence might seem straightforward, there are many peculiarities and practical issues that the British employer must take into account. Even once the Licence is granted, employers may still face additional checks and audits from the Home Office and will be required to comply with the numerous legal requirements.

To help the UK employers to deal with the practical issues of employing foreign workers and applying for a sponsor licence, we are organising this workshop.

Speakers:

Agenda:

  • Prevention of illegal working & sponsoring foreign skilled workers
  • UKVI compliance visits
  • Issuance of sponsorship certificates
  • Revocation of sponsor licence
  • Q&A session

The workshop will be followed by a networking reception.

Registration:

Admission is free by registration is required via Eventbrite.

If you have enquiries please contact: enquiries@sterling-law.co.uk or tel. 02078228535.

Law Student Internship (Ukrainian / Russian Speaker) – London

We are offering an unpaid internship for undergraduate / postgraduate law students. The internship is normally full-time lasting 2-3 months.

Sterling & Law Associates LLP is a London-based immigration law firm accredited by the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) at the highest qualification level 3.

Sterling & Law Associates LLP is regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). The firm has a level 3 registration allowing to work on the most complex immigration and visa cases. The firm assists corporates and individuals on all immigration law cases, including visa refusals and appeals.

Responsibilities and Duties

During the internship we try to expose interns as much as possible to the working practices of the firm in the area of immigration law and human rights. This will include administrative assignments, filing, contacting clients, legal research, and assisting immigration lawyers and partners of the firm with current casework.

A full-time job offer may result from a successfully completed internship. References will be provided at the end of internship.

Law Student Internship Applications

In order to apply for internship please send your CV by email contact@sterling-law.co.uk

Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted for an interview.

Vacancy: Experienced Immigration Solicitor (3 PQE) – IAAS Level 2, Supervisor level

We are looking for an experienced immigration solicitor (3 PQE).

The successful candidate must be accredited to at least IAAS level 2 and IAAS Supervisor level.

The candidate will be expected to manage a heavy workload involving practical advice to individual and corporate clients. This solicitor role will require you to handle a full range of immigration and asylum matters. The candidate will be required to handle own caseload without supervision.

  • Salary: £60,000 (negotiable) plus bonuses
  • Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted for an interview.
  • Experience: PQE: 3 years (Required)
  • Accreditation: IAAS level 2 or above and Supervisor level (Required)
  • Education: Bachelor’s degree (Required)

About the employer:

Sterling Lawyers Ltd. is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (No.630147). The firm specialises in immigration, criminal and family law cases and assists corporate and individual clients.

How to apply:

For more details and to apply for this position “Experienced Immigration Solicitor (3 PQE)” please send your CV and cover letter indicating your expected salary and/or fee share, and availability by e-mail to info@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

Workshop Invitation: How to build a startup (and stay in the UK with Tier 1 visa) – 17 May 2018

Sterling & Law Associates LLP and Marylebone Entrepreneurial Club invite students and graduates to join our workshop “How to build a startup (and stay in the UK with Tier 1 visa)” held on Thursday, 17 May 2018 at Cass Business School, London.

Date & Time:

Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 18.00

Venue:

Cass Business School, 106 Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8TZ [MAP]

Admission: Free but registration is required via Eventbrite.

Speakers:

  • Ruslan Kosarenko Lawyer UK – Principal Partner at Sterling & Law Associates LLP, has 11 years of experience in immigration law practice with particular expertise in complex human rights cases. He is an expert in Tier 1 Visa (Investor and Entrepreneur) applications, acting for both corporate and individual clients.
  • Slava Baranovskiy – creative entrepreneur, tech startup founder, film director/producer and Entrepreneur in Residence of Westminster Business School with a strong business and tech background, founder of Eligent.

The event is aimed at Russian speaking students and graduates considering to establish their own company in the UK and utilise it to obtain a Tier 1 visa.

Schedule:

1. How to build your own start-up –  presentation by Slava Baranovskiy
2. How to get a Tier 1 visa – presentation by Ruslan Kosarenko
3. Panel Discussion on contiguous matters
4. Q&A session
5. Networking

Main topics covered:

1. Building a tech startup

– How to get a great tech startup idea.
– How to build your startup product.
– Main technologies you need to know.
– How to build your startup team.
– How to find CTO/tech resources for your startup.
– What are the main tech startup challenges/failures and how to resolve them?

2. Defining your product/service

– Who is your target audience?
– Who are your competitors?
– What is your Product/Service USP?
– What is your marketing/sales strategy?

3. Immigration and Business

– How to make myself and my business eligible for Tier 1 visa?
– How to prepare for application? Tips and hints.
– What are typical mistakes and reasons for refusal?
– How to get a Tier 1 Visa if I don’t have an idea?

GDPR – complexities of small print and how to take it easy

Summary by Xena Semikina, Solicitor and Higher Rights Advocate

The EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) are coming into force on 25 May 2018 and so far it has caused quite a stir among businesses.

The date is upon us, the penalties for non-compliance are severe and hardly anyone knows what exactly they have to do to comply. You suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of the law without knowing right from wrong.

The 119 page document was published in small print in an official periodical of the European Union and only lawyers can read it without falling asleep.

However, the beast is not vicious, but only misunderstood. We naturally have a fear of things we don’t know, but thankfully we don’t need to take up a degree course every time we face this fear.  This article will explain the new law in little more than a thousand words – not enough to make you an expert, but enough to alleviate the fear and prompt you to act.

It’s not difficult to grasp a piece of legislation if you know only one thing about it – its purpose. The purpose of a legislation is its spirit. The spirit of this particular legislation can be summoned by only one word – accessibility. This is the only thing that makes this legislation very different from all those pre-existing ones. All the rest of changes are subsequent to this one and arise from it naturally, by the virtue of common sense.

There are two main reasons why information has to be accessible and it affects subjects’ rights at two main stages – the stage of data collection and the stage of data retention.

Data Collection

At the stage of data collection the primary concern is the clarity of the information provided to the subjects. It is at this stage that your customers are expected to make the decision whether or not to enter a business relationship with you and share their data. The universal principle of human co-existence in a free world is that every contact between human beings has to be consensual. No one can be made party to something they reject. And business interactions are not different from private interactions in this respect.

Your customers have to give their consent to share their data with you and this consent has to be given knowingly.

‘Knowingly’ means that they have to know what exactly they are consenting to, how exactly their data will be used. They will not know, if they are not informed. ‘Informing’ used to mean ‘providing information’. GDPR puts an end to this interpretation and this is the most fundamental change it introduces.

According to GDPR ‘informing’ means not only providing information, but presenting it in a clear form, accessible to majority of people. When you request consent, you have to present your request in a clear, unambiguous language, and in a form which is easy to read (Article 7). No more lengthy policies in small print, no more hyperlinks that crush devices before they link – information has to be right before your customers’ eyes. You have to state your request in a plain and concise language, identifying clearly why you need the data, and the subjects have to give their consent explicitly, which means consciously. Pre-ticked boxes no longer count as an explicit consent.

Data Accessibility

Now you have collected the data and you keep it. This is where the new law kick in for the second time, and again with the same kick – accessibility.

In the language of GDPR it is called ‘data portability’. According to Article 20 of the GDPR 2016/679 the data has to be stored in commonly used and structured way. It has to be machine readable and easily transferable. The rationale behind this rule is very simple.

The data has to be easily accessible and available at a short notice on request of the data subject. It also has to be easily deleted if the subject requests it. This is because the subjects have the right of access to the data (Article 15) held by any business or organisation, they have the right to withdraw their consent for the processing of their data at any time (Article 7(3)) and request erasure of the data – so called ‘right to be forgotten’ (Article 17).

At this stage many of you may think: ‘I don’t like it’. It smells of total restructuring of your website and maybe the entire business, which for smaller enterprises may mean a great strain on already tight resources.

Here is good news for you.

A lot of businesses don’t need to modify their website or their business practices. Obtaining your customers’ consent is only one lawful basis for legitimate data processing (Article 6). In many clear cases consent may in fact be presumed. It covers situations where the data you have collected are strictly necessary for the pursuit of your business purposes, in other words the purposes which are mutual for you and your customers – the provision of services by you to them. In the language of GDPR it’s called legitimate interests.

GDPR & Legitimate Interests

When you think about it, it only makes sense. If someone comes to you and asks you to do something for him, of course he expects you to know where to find him. You do not need to explain to him that this is the purpose of you retaining his data and you don’t need to ask him for consent, because it is already presumed and clear to both of you. He has given it to you by his act of requesting your services. However, when using this basis for data processing, you have to be extra careful, because you take extra responsibility for the subjects’ rights and interests, and you have to balance you legitimate interests against their interests and fundamental rights at every point of data collection.

It may well be that your business does not have to undergo painful and expensive restructuring and all you have to do is to update two documents – your Privacy Policy and your Terms and Conditions – to make references to the new legislation. A careful analysis of your website at all points of data collection will show whether or not you will need your customers’ consent at any of those point or you can use legitimate interests basis.

At Sterling Lawyers, for a small fee, we can carry out thorough analysis of your website and your business practices, and advise you on whether or not you need to introduce changes to comply with the new legislation. We can also help you to amend your existing documents and create customer and staff notices compliant with GDPR.

For any assistance please feel free to contact Xena Semikina, Solicitor and Higher Rights Advocate by e-mail: xena@sterlinglawyers.co.uk or phone +44 (0) 207 822 8599 

Leaving the EU – Impact on Human Rights: Conference Summary Report

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were delighted to attend and participate in a high-level conference “Leaving the EU – Impact on Human Rights” organised by New Europeans[1], together with the European Association for the Defence of Human Rights (AEDH)[2], Britain in Europe[3] and Brunel University Knowing Our Rights project[4], and held in London on 16 March 2018 at Europe House

The event was organised to discuss the potential impact that Brexit would have on a number of our individuals’ rights and examine areas of human rights under threat for EU citizens and UK citizens.

The conference shed some light on key contentious areas such as workers’ rights, data protection, and family life among others. These are increasingly important topics to discuss as we move nearer and nearer towards the exit date of UK from the EU, especially when those in charge fail to provide specific indications into the details of these niche areas.

Brexit implications for human rights

There is a great fear that Brexit will lead to the regression of many of our rights. In the current state, a number of our fundamental rights derive from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European rules, regulations and directives. The Withdrawal Bill that proposes to implement Brexit could seek to remove several of those rights. For instance, in terms of employment law, the EU sits at the heart of workers’ rights[5] having brought about greater health and safety regulations that reduced the number of work days loss to absences and sick days, bringing about equal pay for equal value work and ensuring our right to parental leave. The Withdrawal Bill could possibly see the removal of these rights.

Data Protection Concerns

When it comes to data protection[6], the General Data Protection Regulation[7] (GDPR) proposed by the EU that comes into force on 25 May 2018, which has been implemented in the UK through the Data Protection Act, could lose all strength and meaning following Brexit. From an immigration perspective, the Data Protection Act includes an exception to the regulation for ‘effective immigration enforcement’. This means that if an individual is suspected of breaching immigration controls, the Home Office and other governmental agencies would be able to obtain and use personal data, that had been collected for purposes unrelated to immigration, to make a decision in regard to an individuals’ immigration status. This exemption could also mean that the Home Office would not be obliged to respond to Subject Access Requests (SARs) from people who wish to know what data has been held in relation to their previous immigration applications or situations at border controls. This is distressing because SARs are often used by legal practitioners to acquire necessary information to advise their clients on their specific circumstances, particularly when their clients do not have a clear record of their previous situations. Brexit could mean that the UK could get away with including such a wide-ranging exception into the legislation.

Photo by New Europeans

 

Family and private life

The conference also delved deeper into the impact that Brexit would have on our family and private life[8]. Research and analysis is currently being carried out into the effects on different categories of families. In the UK, 12% of all children born in the UK have at least one parent that is from the EU. After the referendum, there has been a sharp increase in the number of EU citizens in the UK applying for permanent residence applications and citizenship applications. However, while it might give you some peace of mind before the exit, the permanent residence card or document certifying permanent residence will not be considered valid after Brexit. EU citizens in the UK and their family members will have to reapply for a ‘settled’ status in the UK. However, as the exact details and processes are yet to have been announced, the rights of the EU citizens in the UK and those of UK citizens abroad in other EU countries have not been guaranteed. Brexit is seeking to remove EU citizens’ and their families’ free movement and automatic rights within the UK and create an entirely new system that has yet to be executed.

These alarming possibilities after Brexit gives rise to the question, as brought up by a participant at the conference, of whether the stripping of our access to these rights given to us through the EU would amount to an infringement of our human rights in itself.

Despite what has been mentioned in this article, no one knows for certain what is going to happen to our human rights after Brexit, let alone anything else relating to the UK, EU and Brexit, but it is important to keep updated on the news to ensure that we are all prepared for the big change coming our way.

Throughout the entire conference, it has been evident that Brexit has and will bring about an unjustifiable amount of uncertainty into our lives. This uncertainty underlines the discussion with ifs, doubts and questions that cannot be answered with a simple response. It is clear that the complexity of the matter, namely what effect Brexit will have on our fundamental human rights, cannot be easily resolved. However, what we can take away from this event is that there are several organisations and individuals that are currently fighting to ensure that our intrinsic human rights are not infringed.

It is our goal at Sterling & Law Associates LLP to help individuals and families to navigate this complex area of law and to keep EU nationals updated on any changes that may affect their life.

References:

[1] New Europeans is a civil rights organisation that campaigns for freedom of movement, non-discrimination and the principle of solidarity in Europe. This is done by giving a platform to European and non-EU citizens a voice in local communities to join and take part in the Europe-wide debate regarding the challenges that we are currently faced with.

[2] AEDH is a European network of over 30 individual and organisation members to defend and promote human rights in the EU.

[3] Britain in Europe is a think tank based at Brunel University London that brings together academics, legal practitioners, and human rights NGOs across Britain and Europe to conduct research and influence public policy.

[4] The project aims to provide analysis and insight into understanding the impact and application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK.

[5] This topic was discussed by Hannah Reed from the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

[6] This topic was discussed by Gracie Bradley from Liberty, a UK human rights and civil liberties campaign group.

[7] The GDPR was proposed to unify data protection rules for individuals within the EU. It seeks to protect personal data that is stored on computers or filing systems for example by ensuring that organisations that hold your personal information need to notify you if they share it and be transparent about how they process and use that personal information. The reason why this regulation is seen to be a move forward in this area is that there are real risks that can arise from non-compliance such as fines of up to 2% – 4% of the company’s global turnover.

[8] This topic was discussed by Dr. Nando Sigona from the Institute for Research into Superdiversity at the University of Birmingham.