Category: Successful Cases

Appeal allowed after a lengthy long-distance relationship reunited

Sterling Law have successfully represented a client in a complex appeal case, and helped to challenge the Home Office’s refusal of our client’s EEA Family Permit application.

In the present case, the Home Office sought to argue that the marriage between the appellant and her EEA national spouse was “a marriage of convenience”, contracted for the sole and predominant purpose of gaining an immigration advantage. The Home Office was not satisfied with the applicant’s evidence submitted, such as their marriage certificate.

Moreover, the fact that there is a substantial age gap between the couple, the Home Office further suspected the scum marriage.The application to join as a family member of the EEA was then refused by the Home Office, subsequently an appeal was prepared by Sterling Law based on the  evidence, which shows the frequency of travelling of the sponsor to the home country of the appellant, photographs, supporting letters from close friends and family.

The Appeal was allowed, and the Immigration Judge noted that the sponsor had given credible evidence, supported by the documents prepared.

Should you have any further questions, or think any of the above may apply to your matter, please do not hesitate to contact us directly:

 

Nollienne Alparaque 

Email: nollienne@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7822 8535

Mob. +44 (0) 0781276 9389

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, or via our online appointment booking form.

Appeal allowed after Home Office refuses EEA Residence Card for Brazilian National

A new successful case came out recently after the decision by the First-tier Tribunal.

The case concerned a family couple, where a Brazilian national married an EEA national. The appellant entered the UK, with the EEA national, on the basis of her Brazilian marriage certificate. Subsequently, the wife applied for a residence card as a family member of the EEA national and were refused by the Home Office.

Sterling Law appealed the decision of the Home Office, who considered their marriage to be one of convenience and, therefore, refused the residence card and ordered the appellant’s removal from the UK.

The refusal was based on the fact that the marriage certificate was not sufficient proof of the existence of a genuine marriage, or relationship.

The couple were expected to provide evidence of financial ties and cohabitation throughout their relationship. Further issues arose on the day when the Home Office team visited the couple’s property, which the appellant shared with her husband and parents-in-law.

Immigration lawyer, Nollienne Alparaque acted on behalf of the client and clarified that when the Home Office team visited the appellant’s property, there was miscommunication between the officers and the appellant’s friend, who spoke very little English, and could not properly confirm the name of the appellant’s spouse. Moreover, there was no any evidence reporting the visit by the Home Office team.

As to the alleged lack of financial ties, it has been argued that the appellant could not open a bank account, because the Home Office had her passport.  The couple had demonstrated active communication through Facebook, phone calls and messages before they got married in Brazil.

To conclude, the decision of the Home Office to refuse the residence card was found not to be in accordance with the EEA Regulations 2016, and the appellant was entitled to the residence card as an EEA family member.

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.

An Employment Law Victory – Substantial Compensation Achieved for Our Client

Sterling Law’s Employment Solicitor, Kuldeep Clair, dealt with a case over the past six months this year which resulted in a significant victory for our client.

Our British-born client had been working remotely in Latvia for a northern English company for almost 10 years. He resigned in December 2017 after serious allegations of negligence and incompetence were made, and his pay was cut by 25%.

We represented our client since after the resignation, and suspected that other motives were at play in the business’s very heavy-handed approach. The employer held out against any offer of compromise, and refused to take part in ACAS conciliation, both before and after tribunal proceedings were eventually issued.

The employer was represented by a large northern law firm; one of the most reputable and well-regarded commercial law firms in the country, and the tribunal hearing was set for today at Manchester Employment Tribunal. The employer resisted our claim with every argument possible, including the suggestion that English law did not apply to the employment contract, as our client was based abroad. This was legally nonsensical.

Eventually, we managed to obtain the five-figure sum satisfactory settlement that we were holding out for, at, would you believe, 5.55pm, two days before the hearing date. So the hearing did not prove to be necessary.

Our client was delighted with the outcome, although it was a pity that he had already made the journey all the way to Manchester from Latvia, and we had allocated our time for the hearing, and made our travel plans, bought our train tickets etc, by then.

It shows the value of tough negotiations where you have a good claim, which is presented and argued well by your lawyer, both in the documentation and the witness statements.

If you have any employment disputes and require a top quality legal advice on any employment matter, whether you are an employer or employee, please contact Kuldeep S. Clair, Consultant Solicitor and Advocate, directly:

Email: Kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

Mobile: 07484 614090

Tel. 020 7822 8599

EEA Retained Right of Residence Appeal Allowed

Oksana Demyanchuk and her team at Sterling Law were successful in yet another appeal in relation to Regulation 10 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulation 2016.

Regulation 10 deals with non EEA nationals who have retained their rights of residence in the UK following the breakdown of their marriage to an EEA national. In the present case, the Home Office sought to argue that the relationship between the Appellant and his former EEA national spouse was a sham based on a visit conducted by Immigration Enforcement to his home.

Following the visit, Home Office was not satisfied that the relationship was genuine because of a limited contact, and that the Appellant had failed to provide adequate documentation to evidence the same.

The Appellant’s application for a Residence Card was then refused by the Home Office and so an appeal was lodged by Sterling Law.

The Immigration Judge allowed the appeal noting that

The Appellant’s documentation submitted in support of the appeal fully addressed and countered the Respondent’s objections.

The Judge further clarified that he found the reasons for the refusal were not legal, not valid and not factually correct.

Because of this the Judge proceeded to allow the appeal at the hearing, finding that the Appellant was entitled to a Residence Card.

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.

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.

Sterling Law sets precedent with Baigazieva [2018] EEA Retained Rights Case in the Court of Appeal

Baigazieva [2018] EWCA Civ 1088 is a case of Sterling Law that is an important new precedent on EEA retained rights of residence. The decision, given by Singh LJ of the Court of Appeal, has served a positive outcome to the appeal brought from the Upper Tribunal against the Home Office’s contention that the Appellant’s former spouse was not exercising treaty rights at the point of their divorce.

In doing so, the decision has also shed light by giving a new direction to a previously ambiguous interpretation of law under Article 10(5) of the EEA Regulations 2006, now revoked and replaced by EEA Regulations 2016.

Background: EEA Retained Rights of Residence

The Appellant, Ms. Baigazieva, applied for retained rights of residence on the basis that she was a former family member of an EEA national who was exercising treaty rights at the time of divorce after which she was residing in the UK as a qualified person.

The Home Office, notwithstanding the fact that she was previously issued a residence card as a family member of a qualified person, refused the application on the grounds that she did not provide sufficient evidence that she has retained a right of residence following divorce from an EEA national in accordance with Regulation 10(5) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006. Inclusive to the the issue of sufficient evidence not being provided, was the contention that the former spouse of the Appellant was not exercising treaty rights at the point of divorce.

Legal Issue

As such, the appeal turns on the correct interpretation of Regulation 10(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”). On 9 December 2015, when the Secretary of State the appellant’s application for a residence permit as a family member with a retained right of residence, the 2006 Regulations were still in force. However, on 1 February 2017, the 2006 Regulations were revoked and replaced by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (subject to transitional provisions) (“the 2016 Regulations”).

This case has set a much-needed precedence for both ongoing retained rights of residence applications and appeals, as well as applicants hoping to apply for retained rights of residence as former spouses of an EEA national exercising treaty rights in the UK.

This is a right that has subsisted since 2004 under the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 2004 (Directive 2004/38/EC) which ordains that it is a right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Article 13(2) of the Directive provides for third country family members of EU citizens to retain their right to reside in an EU Member State in the event of divorce and is supplemented by Regulation 10 of the EEA Regulations 2006 (and now 2016) which lays out the conditions under which a family member may retain a right of residence.

Accordingly, subsection (5) of Regulation 10 provides that a person satisfies the conditions in this paragraph if –

  • He ceased to be a family member of a qualified person on the termination of marriage or civil partnership of the qualified person;
  • he was residing the United Kingdom in accordance with these Regulations at the date of the termination;
  • he satisfies the condition in paragraph (6)
  • either –
  • prior to the initiation of the proceedings for the termination of the marriage or the civil partnership the marriage or civil partnership had lasted for at least three years and the parties to the marriage or civil partnership had resided in the United Kingdom for at least one year during its duration.

Until this decision was made an ambiguity persisted on the interpretation of the law under Regulation 10(5) in which it was unascertained whether a third country national ex-spouse is required to show that their former spouse was exercising Treaty rights in the host Member state at the time of their divorce (note that it is at the time of the divorce and not having acquired the divorce, the decree absolute) in order to retain a right of residence under Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC. This is despite the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) giving an answer to that question in 2014 in the context of domestic abuse, which was that the EU spouse, as the qualified person, must reside in the host member state until the date of the commencement of the divorce proceedings.

Thereby, the general implication here was that it was not necessary for the EU spouse to reside in the host Member State until the divorce itself was granted. Though at the EU level, such a determination has not, until this Baigazieva [2018] decision, been made in the UK despite the Secretary of State admitting that the issue has arisen in several proceedings in recent years without definitively being resolved.

Success – SSHD Concedes Appeal

As such, the Secretary of State for the Home Office not only conceded the appeal in the public interest so that the court to give a substantive judgement on the issue of law which arises but the this appeal also prompted the SSHD to accept that a third country national, or order to retain a right to reside in the UK in reliance of Regulation 10(5), does not need to show that their former EEA spouse exercised treaty rights as a “qualified person” until the divorce, the decree absolute, itself. Rather, it is sufficient to show that the former EEA spouse exercised treaty rights until divorce proceedings were commenced.

Singh LJ, the presiding judge of this Upper Tribunal appeal delivered a substantive judgment and concluded that the Upper Tribunal Judge erred in the approach she took to Regulation 10(5) of the 2006 Regulations. Ultimately, this judgement which finds that a third country national has to show their former spouse was a qualified person at the point of the initiation of divorce proceedings rather than at the point of divorce, now sets precedent for succeeding cases on the same matter.

The legal representatives of this case were Counsel, Agatha Patyna, from Doughty Street Chambers acting for the Appellant upon the instructions of the Appellant’s legal representative, Nadia Pylypchuk (as supervised by Ruslan Kosarenko) from Sterling Law.

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 appeal against refusal of asylum claim in the UK

Immigration lawyer, Oksana Demyanchuk (OISC Level 3) successfully handled the appeal case of the client, whose asylum claim was refused. The Appellant, a Ukrainian national, was subject to mobilisation and was summoned to join military service in Ukraine to participate in the Russia-Ukraine war while he was in the United Kingdom.

The Appellant arrived to the UK in 2014. After being subjected to removal to Ukraine, the Appellant claimed asylum due to his fears of returning to Ukraine and facing potential imprisonment for evasion of joining the military service. He also feared persecution for his previous political activity, which is currently viewed by the Ukrainian authorities as “associated with the former pro-Russian regime”.

The asylum claim was refused by the Home Office on the following grounds:

  1. Firstly, the Home Office did not accept that the Appellant was of interest to the Ukrainian authorities due to his political activities, thus placing the Appellant outside the jurisdiction of the Refugee Convention 1951.
  2. Secondly, the Home Office was not convinced that the Appellant’s evasion from military was persecutory.
  3. Thirdly, the Home Office also argued that the Appellant was aware of his illegal status in the UK, and that he delayed claiming asylum for 2 years whilst being in the UK and this fact damaged his creditability.
  4. Finally, the Home Office dismissed the argument that the Appellant’s religion could not result in him being persecuted by the Ukrainian authorities.

Basis for Asylum Claim

Whilst relying on the objective evidence in regard to the Russian – Ukrainian military conflict and the aggravating attitude of the Ukrainian regime to the ex-members of a political party with a pro-Russian ideology, the Judge was convinced that the Appellant was subjected to an immediate custodial sentence in Ukraine.

In addition, with reference to the VB Case, particularly that there was a real risk that the conditions of detention and imprisonment would subject the Appellant to be detained and imprisoned upon returning to Ukraine, the Judge allowed the appeal under the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In regard to the Home Office’s argument that the Appellant delayed claiming asylum for 2 years whilst being in the UK, the Judge accepted that the delay was caused by the Appellant’s sincere belief and hope that the situation in Ukraine would improve and he would not be searched for by the military prosecutors or police.

The fact that the client completed his military service in Ukraine in 1997-98 and received his military call-up papers in 2014 proved his military duty and potential persecution for the draft evasion.

Finally, the Judge also acknowledged that the Appellant would face difficulties in Ukraine due to his participation and membership in the Russian Orthodox Church, which was different to Kyiv Patriarchate and was not appreciated in Ukraine during the war time.

In the circumstances, as the case law holds that prison conditions are such to breach Article 3 ECHR and in the light of the fact that I accept [the Appellant’s] claim that the prosecution could be motivated by politics in view of the background evidence … I find that he has demonstrated that he has a well-founded fear of prosecution for a Convention reason.

On the above stated basis, the appeal was allowed under the Articles 3 and 8 of ECHR.  

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.

Spouse Visa Refusal Successfully Challenged

Oksana Demyanchuk, Immigration lawyer (OISC Level 3) successfully represented the client in a difficult case and helped to challenge the Home Office’s refusal of the UK entry clearance – spouse visa application.

The basis of the spouse visa refusal was that the appellant has previously entered the UK on false documents and that she had used deception in a previous application by failing to declare that she was previously refused entry clearance.Therefore, deception was alleged by the Home Office and her application refused under both Appendix FM and paragraph 320(11) of the Immigration Rules.

After hearing the evidence from the sponsor of the applicant and upon reviewing evidence put forward by Sterling & Law Associates LLP, the Judge allowed the appeal on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Private & Family Life

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect to individual’s private and family life. It was held that if our client’s husband relocates to Ukraine he would potentially be subject to military service. Our client was subsequently granted an entry clearance visa, as it was held that her husband cannot be reasonably expected to relocate to Ukraine to live with his family.

The judge had also taken into account the fact that the appellant had previously voluntary returned to  Ukraine and her intention to set matters right by making the proper entry clearance application from abroad.

The appeal was allowed on Article 8 of the ECHR grounds.