Category: Latest News

ARTICLE 8 APPEAL OUTSIDE THE IMMIGRATION RULES ALLOWED ON THE SPOT!

Our client, a citizen of the Russian Federation, came to the UK at the age of 12 to study. After graduating with a bachelor’s degree from a UK university, our client applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK under the ten-year continuous long Residency Rules.

The Home Office refused the application with no right of in-country appeal. The client’s previous legal representatives did not challenge this decision, at which point our client became an over-stayer as his continuous leave was broken. Instead, our client then applied for leave to remain based upon his private life. This application was refused on the grounds that our client did not satisfy requirements 276ADE of the Immigration Rules.

Immigration Rules 276ADE (1)

The requirements to be met by an applicant for leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK are that at the date of application, the applicant:

(i) does not fall for refusal under any of the grounds in Section S-LTR 1.1 to S-LTR 2.2. and S-LTR.3.1. to S-LTR.4.5. in Appendix FM; and

(ii) has made a valid application for leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK; and

(iii) has lived continuously in the UK for at least 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment); or

(v) is aged 18 years or above and under 25 years and has spent at least half of his life living continuously in the UK (discounting any period of imprisonment); or

(vi) subject to sub-paragraph (2), is aged 18 years or above, has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) but there would be very significant obstacles to the applicant’s integration into the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK.

 

After approaching numerous other lawyers, the client approached Sterling Law. Our lawyer, Oksana Demyanchuk and her team lodged an appeal with the First-tier Tribunal on the grounds that the decision was a breach of our client’s Article 8 ECHR human rights. In particular, the emphasis was placed on the fact that our client had established an extensive private life in the UK since his entry. After considering the grounds put forward and the bundle of documents provided in support of the appeal, the Judge allowed the appeal on a spot despite our client not meeting any of the Immigration Rules! In doing so, the Judge found that

the Home Office timing resulted in unfairness because it effectively prevented the appellant from benefiting from paragraph 276 ADE of the Immigration Rules when he had qualified for indefinite leave to remain.

 

Moreover, the Judge found that our client

  • has built up a significant private life in the United Kingdom;
  • has the English language skills of a native speaker;
  • is financially independent; and
  • It would be in public interest to retain him in the country.

Bearing the above in mind, it was held that any interference in the Appellant’s private life will result in unjustifiably harsh consequences.

 

Thanks to Oksana Demyanchuk and her team, our client can remain in the UK which already become a home for him.

 

Contact us should you have any immigration-related question:

oksana@sterling-law.co.uk and michael@sterling-law.co.uk

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

You can also text us via facebook.

AFTER FIVE REFUSALS CLIENT OBTAINED LEGAL IMMIGRATION STATUS IN THE UK

Our client, a national of Sierra Leone, came to the UK as a visitor. Since one of his family members was involved in political activities against the government our client feared for his life on return to Sierra Leone and decided to stay in the UK.

He applied, without legal representatives, for leave to remain on the medical grounds twice. However, these applications were refused.

After several years he applied for leave to remain on the human rights grounds. Again, the Home Office refused these human rights applications although our client had integrated into UK society, having lived here for over 16 years at the time of the last refusal. Moreover, for the last four years, he has been in a relationship with a British citizen and has established a close relationship with her British child from the previous relationship. They all lived together and our client cares for the child while his mother is at work.

 

Sterling Law successfully appealed the last Home Office refusal. In reaching his decision the Judge stressed that:

The welfare of the minor child of this family is a primary consideration in my deliberations. The child is British, entitled to the benefits of his citizenship, which include living in Britain and having access to its education, health and social care systems. Moreover, the child enjoys regular direct contact with his biological father that would be lost if the child has to leave the UK.

 

It follows that it is not reasonable and to remove our client from the UK as he is one of the main carers for the qualifying child. Thus, the Judge allowed the appeal on the human right grounds.

 

Thanks to Sterling Law, the client finally obtained legal immigration status in the UK after over 10 years fighting for his rights with the Home Office.

 

Contact us should you have any immigration-related question:

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

DOMESTIC WORKER GRANTED SUBSEQUENT LEAVE TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF THE IMMIGRATION RULES

Can a domestic worker in a private household establish a family life with the family they work with?
If Oksana Demyanchuk is dealing with your case, then yes!

 

Our client, a Russian national, has been working as a nanny for a family, since the birth of their first child five years ago. When the family moved to the UK, our client obtained a six-month domestic worker in a private household visa to accompany them to the UK and continue her employment as the family’s nanny.

As a nanny to the children, our client spent a significant amount of time with them since their birth and has become incredibly close to the children. One of the children who has several health issues has built a particularly trusting relationship with our client.

Due to the particular circumstances of the family, our client’s support of the family is vital. By the time our client’s leave to remain was due to expire our client’s support to the family was irreplaceable.

However, from April 2012 the Immigration Rules does not allow domestic worker visa holders to extend their stay in the UK beyond a total six-month limit.

 

Therefore, our client applied for leave to remain on the basis of her human rights, in particular, her right to private and family life in the UK.

 

The Home Office refused to accept that family life between our client and her employers and their children existed for the purposed of Article 8 ECHR. Accordingly, an appeal was lodged with the First-tier Tribunal.

At the appeal, on the grounds and documents advanced by Oksana Demyanchuk, the Judge found that

There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes family life within the compass of Article 8. And thus, given the nature of the dependency, family life exists in this case for the purpose of Article 8.

 

Moreover, the Judge accepted that more than normal emotional ties exist between the Appellant and the family and the refusal to grant our client leave to remain is disproportionate and constitutes a breach of her Article 8 ECHR rights. Thus, the appeal was allowed.

 

Contact us should you have any immigration-related question:

oksana@sterling-law.co.uk and michael@sterling-law.co.uk

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

You can also text us via facebook.

GRANDMOTHER CAN STAY IN THE UK WITH GRANDCHILD SUFFERING FROM AUTISM

Our client, a Ukrainian national, came to the UK many years ago on a visit visa and has stayed here since then. She lives with her daughter and her granddaughter who has been diagnosed with severe autism. Due to the child’s particular needs, our client provides round the clock care to her granddaughter for many years. She applied for leave to remain under Article 8 ECHR but the application was refused.

The Home Office stated that our client does not meet the Rules and the daughter could be helped by local authority care.

 

Sterling Law successfully appealed this refusal outside the Immigration Rules on the Human Rights grounds.

The judge adopted the entire skeleton argument from our lawyers as his own findings and accepted that:

  • The granddaughter has formed the closest bond with her grandmother;
  • The child has a very complex set of very special needs;
  • The grandmother fulfils a parental role in upbringing her granddaughter;
  • The Social Worker cannot find any replacement for Granny;
  • It would be extremely cruel to take the central figure away from the child and the removal would be disproportionate in terms of both private and family life.

Thus, the Judge allowed the appeal on the Human Rights grounds. Our client not only obtained legal status in the UK but also got a chance to remain with her granddaughter and continue to provide her with necessary support and love.

 

Contact us should you have any immigration related question:

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

EXCELLENT NEWS: ASYLUM GRANTED!

Our client, a Georgian national, came to the UK to seek asylum.  After a fire incident on his family’s business property, our client was targeted by Georgian authorities to stop investigating the fire and subsequent suicide of one of his family members. Fearing for his life in Georgia, our client entered the UK and made a claim for asylum. However, his application was refused. He lodged an appeal with the previous legal representatives to obtain refugee status in the UK.

A refugee is any person who, inter alia, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,
• is outside of the country of his nationality and
• is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

 

This asylum appeal was very complex, and previous representatives withdrew from the case, leaving the client without legal protection. At this stage, Sterling Law was instructed by the client. The case received from previous solicitors was underprepared and underrepresented. Thanks to our lawyer Nozima Rakhimjonova, the appeal was allowed on asylum grounds and Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) ECHR. Considering the appeal, the Judge accepted that our client:

  • was targeted by the Georgian authorities suffering injuries as a result of it;
  • is at risk on return to Georgia due to lack of effective investigation and legal redress there.

Thus, our client can remain in the UK without fearing for his life.

 

Asylum appeals of this nature can be very complex and the success can depend on the quality of representations. Therefore, we would strongly advise that any asylum seekers in the UK seek professional legal advice.

Contact us:

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

RETAINED RIGHT OF RESIDENCE

UNABLE TO OBTAIN ID FROM YOUR EX-SPOUSE? ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE CAN BE ACCEPTED

Our client, a national of Turkmenistan, applied for a residence card as someone who had retained the right to reside in the UK. She was married to an EEA national but their marriage has now ended. Her ex-husband set up his own business when they married and was doing that when they divorced. Thus, our client satisfied one of the main requirements of Regulation 10 of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. Necessary documents proving ex-husband’s employment (e.g. tax returns) were submitted with the application.

However, the Home Office refused our client’s application noting that “she had not provided evidence that her ex-husband had been working at the date of divorce”. In addition, our client was unable to provide a copy of an identity document for her ex-husband since he has been completely uncontactable. She has tried to call and speak with her ex-husband on a number of occasions, contacted him via emails and whatsapp. However, he either did not respond or clearly showed an unwillingness to assist her. Thus, it was beyond our client’s control to produce the required identity document.

In accordance with the Reg. 42 of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016:

Alternative evidence of identity and nationality

where a provision of these Regulations requires a person to hold or produce a valid national identity card issued by an EEA State or a valid passport, the Secretary of State may accept alternative evidence of identity and nationality where the person is unable to obtain or produce the required document due to circumstances beyond the person’s control.

 

Sterling Law successfully appealed the initial refusal. The Judge was satisfied that sufficient evidence regarding the ex-husband employment was provided. Moreover, following the provisions of Reg. 42 the Judge accepted the expired EEA document of her ex-husband (provided with the previous successful application for a residence card) as the evidence of nationality and identity of her ex-husband.

 

Contact us should you have any immigration related question:

Jekaterina Trubina

Email: Jekaterina@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Shakir Hussain

Email: Shakir@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

ALLEGED MISUSING THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE IN THE UK

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:

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

“The law extends but does not limit freedom.” Sterling Law wins the lawsuit against the UK Home Office

Prior to being disappointed because of having lost the case, we would advise to attentively check the grounds which the Home Office based its decision on.

The situation that will be presented below shows that even the Home Office can show low consideration of the specific case. An individual has referred to Sterling Law to provide legal representation in the case due to the refusal of her application for an EEA Residence Card as confirmation of her right to reside in the UK with her husband of British citizenship.

Our Client is a woman (further Appellant) who got married to a British citizen in 2013 in Afghanistan. By the date of the hearing, they were expecting the birth of their first child. In 2016 her husband was offered a good job in the Netherlands, so the family decided to relocate there permanently. He was the first who moved to start his new job and a few months later, the Appellant joined him. She applied for EEA Residence Card in the Netherlands as a confirmation of her right to stay with her husband as a family member. She has issued a Residence Card in the Netherlands. Everything seemed to be in order: well-paid job, new rental apartment, studying a new language, life was filled with new colors. The family could see a lot of bright prospects for their future in the new country. They did not have intentions to leave the  Netherlands. However, life often has its own plans. Sometime later, they got news that the Applicant’s husband’s mother has seriously got sick in the UK. Taking into account the cultural specifics of the Appellant’s husband’s nationality (he was Afghan), the son was obligated to take care of his senior parents, especially if they were unwell. The family had no other choice but to go back to the UK to take care of the husband’s mother. She had limited capability of moving around the house and was suffering from instant pain in her joints. The Appellant provided significant help to her husband’s mother, such as feeding, cooking, helping to go to bed, etc. Upon arrival to the UK, the Applicant applied for a UK Residence Card as a confirmation of a right to reside in the UK with her British husband. However, the Home Office refused in issuing the Residence Card based on her situation assessment, saying that the Appellant could not meet the requirements of British immigration law.

We would like to provide the grounds of the Home Office refusal:

The Home Office concluded that the Applicant’s relocation to the Netherlands was not genuine, and was done in order to “circumvent domestic immigration laws”. In other words, the Home Office claimed that the Appellant decision to move to the Netherlands was something like a staging show with the only aim – to circumvent British law and to eventually receive UK Residence card. Secondly, the Home Office claimed that it was solely the Applicant’s initiative to come back to the UK, not her husband’s intention.

Moreover, it was concluded that the Applicant did not show that the center of her and her husband’s life was transferred to the Netherlands, practically no integration into new society has been conducted. And the accommodation they rented was just on a temporary base.

Sterling Law was appointed to represent the Appellant in this case, where we initially pointed out on the Home Office low consideration of the case and the numerous obvious evidence provided by the Applicant.

The first and furthermost fact is that throughout the entire Decision Letter the Home Office repeatedly referred to the Applicant has lived in “Ireland” instead of the Netherlands. This could not be considered just a minor error, but an example of how poorly the application was considered by the Home Office.

Based on the provided tenancy agreement, it was clearly seen that the Appellant’s family were planning to stay in the Netherlands not temporarily, but for a long period of time, if not permanently.

Numerous medical check-ups of the Appellant’s mother-in-law showed that she was indeed unwell and needed constant everyday care. Thus, the initiative of their relocation back to the UK was fully belonged to the Appellant’s husband, as it was his mother who needed help and physical support.

Later, the court concluded that relocation to another country could not be just a staging show, as it has been done so much by the family to move the center of their life to the Netherlands: find a new job, rent an apartment, study a new language, integrate into society. No doubts, the appeal was allowed by the Court. The Applicant was granted the UK Residence card.

Sterling Law was more than satisfied that the justice was served. We highly recommend to read through the Home Office decisions attentively, there can be some minor errors which do not influence the actual decision, but at the same there can be mistakes that completely change the outcome of the case, and even worse if this outcome is refusal or rejection of your application, like in the case described above.

This case reaffirms the statement of the prominent English philosopher John Locke, who said that “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

 

Domestic violence – Indefinite Leave to Remain

A VICTORY FOR OUR CLIENT IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

Our lawyers won the appeal regarding indefinite leave to remain in the UK on the human right grounds.
Our client, a national of the Russian Federation, has lived and worked in the UK as a consultant for more than 3 years. Throughout her leave she held a spouse visa under the Immigration Rules (part 8, Appendix FM) as she was married to a British Citizen who is settled and present in the UK. The client had a complicated relationship with her British spouse (former), she was persuaded by former husband to apply for the spouse visa rather than a working visa that was also an option at that time. Our client’s spouse had regular mood swings, behaved with the client aggressively from time to time, forced her to leave the matrimonial house against her will and even forced her to make an act that was against her religion. Also, the client’s husband threatened to inform the Home Office that their marriage is over if she did not follow his instructions. After these events, our client had mental problems, was in continuous grief, sadness, stress, and regret; could not work properly. In addition, she suffered financial abuse since she was forced to transfer money into the spouse’s account, most notoriously, former husband did not give access to that funds.
Our client made an application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a victim of domestic violence that was initially refused by the Home Office, and she had been divorced 5 months before the final hearing.
In the Appeal case, our team provided the successful representation of domestic violence. The appeal was allowed and the right for indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence was granted.

Appeal allowed for refusal of permanent residence as derived from being an EEA national exercising treaty rights in the UK for a continuous period of 5 years

Under Regulation 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, EEA nationals and family members of EEA nationals acquire the right of permanent residence after residing in the UK and exercising treaty rights for a period of at least 5 continuous years. Sterling law represented clients who were refused the right of permanent residence in the UK on this basis. The first appellant was an EEA national who was denied these rights along with their third-party national spouse who was refused the right of permanent residence as the spouse of an EEA national.

It was said that the reason for refusal was that the main appellant had not satisfied that they were exercising treaty rights for a continuous period of 5 years.

The bundle prepared by Sterling Law on behalf of the appellants showed that the reasons for refusal were unfounded. It was proved that the main appellant satisfies and had established treaty rights as an EEA worker in the UK. Evidence was provided by way of bank statements and pay slips for a period of just over 5 years. It was also found that the appellant was a job seeker as established by Hoekstra (nee Unger) case 76/63 (1964) ECR 177 which held that the EU law protected the ‘present worker’ but also ‘one who has left his job, and is capable of taking another’, as the main appellant was unemployed for two months within the 5 year period. It was also found that the second appellant (as the spouse of the main appellant) also exercised their treaty rights in the UK by proof of residence and employment for a period of 5 years and therefore is also entitled to permanent residence.