Category: Successful Cases

Residence Card granted to an Extended Family Member of EEA National after appeal

Sterling Law represented a client from Turkmenistan who made an application for a Residence Card as the unmarried partner of an EEA national who was exercising Treaty Rights in the UK. 

The Home Office refused the application and under Regulation 36(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, the Home Office did not give our client a right of appeal. However, despite the same and in light of the case of Case C-89/17 Banger, Mr Shakir Hussain from our offices contended that our client did have a right of appeal. After considerable correspondence between the Court and Sterling Law, our client’s matter was listed for hearing. At the hearing the first issue was one of jurisdiction because of Regulation 36(3)(b)(ii), however due to our thorough preparation, the Judge accepted jurisdiction and allowed our client’s appeal. 

This was a particularly difficult appeal because the Home Office have explicitly set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 that unmarried partners of EEA nationals do not have a right of appeal. These cases can be very complex and thus we always advise our clients to seek expert legal advice when facing such matters. 

 

Shakir Hussain, Senior Solicitor

Email: shakir@sterling-law.co.uk

Phone: +44 (0) 20 7822 8535

 

 

UK Immigration & Legal Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0) 20 7822 8599, Mobile / Viber: +44 (0) 73 0584 8477, e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Debt and Money Claims in the UK

Debt and Money Claims: personal or on behalf of businesses, whether you are pursuing or defending

We are accustomed to recovering money or defending claims for monetary sums on behalf of our clients.

Unfortunately, the fact that it is not possible to recover hardly any legal costs in cases in ‘small claims’ cases  means that it may not be worth instructing us unless, practically, the dispute involves a sum of at least £6,000.

Having said that, sometimes our clients want to pursue their debtor as a matter of principle, even if the net sum recovered for them is a small proportion of the total sum that was due. That is entirely understandable.

Not all debt claims end in success. There is often a lot of frustration along the way. The lawyer’s job is very difficult. But often, we are very successful.

Sterling Law have concluded a settlement in a case where we had been acting for an architect who had been dealing with a company in the building trade. Several of our client company’s invoices totaling almost £9,000 over the early part of 2018 had remained unpaid for 5-6 months, despite repeated demands for payment. The debtor had just completely ‘blanked’ our client.

We have now received the final instalment in payment from the debtor company in this case, against whom we obtained judgment. This has been paid to our client, the creditor company. Of course our client’s director has expressed his delight at the outcome. 

Judgement-in-Default

The defendant, despite being a highly qualified professional, ignored our two ‘letters before action.’ He then ignored our issue of the court proceedings. We then obtained ‘judgement-in-default’ against his company. He then sprung into action when was threatened to face enforcement of the judgement. Various excuses were made, including blaming his accountants for not receiving the letters and court papers on time, even though they were sent to the correct registered office of the company. Ultimately, the director threatened that he would dissolve his company unless we accepted half the sum due, in full and final settlement.

We were not going to be fobbed off by this nonsense and advised our client accordingly. We had no reason to believe that the defendant company was on the verge of insolvency, and if it was so, we questioned why the director had half the sum sitting in his bank account, available to be paid immediately.

Ultimately, we obtained agreement for half the debt under the judgement to be paid immediately (which it duly was, this week), and for the second half next month.

Our client was delighted with the result; a combination of litigation and tough negotiation achieved a great result. If we had merely launched into enforcing the judgment, it would have taken much longer to obtain the money and costs (payable by our client and not all recoverable from the other side) would have been higher.

If you have a dispute upon which you need advice, please contact us. We can either represent you in court or just provide advice at an initial consultation.

Please contact Kuldeep S. Clair, Consultant Solicitor and Advocate, directly:

Email: Kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

Mobile: 07484 614090

Tel. 020 7822 8599

Asylum Appeal of a Member of LGBT Community Allowed by First-Tier Tribunal

Yet more success for our leading immigration lawyer Oksana Demyanchuk and her team. The First-Tier Tribunal allowed asylum appeal for a member of LGBT community.

The Client was a national of Russia and claimed asylum in the UK on the basis of the sexual orientation. The client was a member of the LGBT+ community and feared returning to Russia due to persecution from the state and society. 

Therefore, the client sought to claim asylum as a member of a particular social group. This is one of five categories that allow to claim refugee status. The other four being race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. 

Particular social group has been defined as having an innate immutable characteristic.

For example, sex or ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It can also have an immutable characteristic that is not innate but is unalterable for other reasons. These includes historical facts of a past association, occupation, or status. It can also be a characteristic that is so fundamental to human dignity that nobody can require a person to change it.

Asylum Refusal & Appeal

The Home Office initially refused the application. Oksana Demyanchuk and Michael Carter lodged an appeal against the decision.

They stated that the decision of the Home Office breached the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The evidence Oksana and Michael put forward served as the basis for the decision.

The Judge found that:

«Given the lack of toleration of same-sex relationships, as evidenced […] it does in my view amount to a significant barrier to a person in a same-sex relationship, to continue life in an integrated fashion in a society where such relationships are simply not accepted”. 

It was for these reasons that the Judge found that the Appellant qualifies for leave to remain under Article 8. In particular through paragraph 276 ADE (1) (VI) of the Immigration Rules as there are significant obstacles to Appellant’s re-integration into Russia.

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal under the Human Rights Convention. 

Should you have any questions regarding claiming asylum in the UK, or would like a free assessment of your particular personal circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

UK Immigration & Legal Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0) 20 7822 8599, Mobile / Viber: +44 (0) 73 0584 8477, e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Leave to Remain granted after 20 years of continuous residence

A remarkable result for our leading immigration lawyer Oksana Demyanchuk and her team. They successfully handled an application under paragraph 276ADE (1) (iii) of the Immigration Rules. The client was granted Leave to remain. 

This Paragraph allows those who have resided in the UK for a period of 20 years continuously to receive  leave in the UK. However, the difficulty for many Applicants is one of evidence. 

 Due to the meticulous and thorough work of Oksana Demyanchuk and her team, this was not an issue for a client of Sterling Law. Home Office approved the application at the first instances.

The Home Office granted leave to remain to the client noting that “we are satisfied that you meet the requirements of paragraphs 276ADE (1) of these Rules”. 

Oksana and her team demonstrated that the Applicant had been in the UK for a period of 20 years continuously. They also evidenced that the Applicant would face very significant obstacles to their integration into their home country. 

This was a fantastic result for Oksana Demyanchuk and her team! More importantly, after 20 years of uncertainty the client now has leave to remain in the UK.

Should you have any questions regarding applications under paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules, or would like a free assessment of you particular personal circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Solomiya Boyar

E-mail: solomiya@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.

Right to Family Life Appeal was allowed on the spot by Upper Tribunal

Outstanding and remarkable result for our leading immigration lawyer Oksana Demyanchuk and her team. An appeal was allowed on the spot at the Upper Tribunal. 

The client had first entered the UK in 2000 and had resided in the country ever since. While in the UK she entered into a relationship with a British citizen. The client then applied for leave to remain in the UK. She submitted the application on the basis of family and private life in the UK. In particular,  the client could not return to their home country. This is because upon return she would face very significant obstacle to her re-integration. 

Moreover, removal of the applicant would breach the couple’s Article 8 ECHR rights.

The family life of our client could not continue in her home country. 

Home Office refused the application and an appeal followed.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The basis was the following. The Judge decided that  removal of the client would not constitute a breach of her Article 8 ECHR rights. This is  somewhat surprisingly given that the Judge found that her British partner would himself  “face very significant difficulties in Ukraine”. Moreover, he would be unlikely to overcome these difficulties. Oksana Demyanchuk evidenced this very clearly.

The grounds were then drafted for another appeal, this time to the Upper Tribunal. She asserted that the First-tier Judge had erred. The Judge confused the tests under Paragraph EX.1 of the Immigration Rules and Article 8. It was also stated the Judge failed to adequately consider the Article 8 rights of the British partner. 

Advanced permission to Appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted. This is due to the strength of the grounds of appeal. At the Upper Tribunal the same grounds were advanced. Upon consideration the Upper Tribunal Judge allowed the appeal on the spot.

This is a remarkable result and was only possible due to the expertise and dedication of Oksana Demyanchuk and her team.  

 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Solomiya Boyar

E-mail: solomiya@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.

Successful appeal for a residence card as a former spouse of EEA national

Another successful appeal by Sterling Law at the First-tier Tribunal. The client is a citizen of Ukraine. She is a former spouse of an EEA national who has retained their right of residence. For that reason, the client applied for a Residence Card as confirmation of their status. 

However, this application was refused. This was on the basis that the client had failed to provide a valid national identity card or passport of her ex-husband. In addition, the applicant neither explained why they had been unable to provide this. 

We prepared a statement in support of the application. Sterling Law explained that the client has tried to contact their former spouse to obtain the original identity document. The client then planned to submitted it with their application. The former spouse, however, gave a negative response.

Subsequently, after receiving the refusal, the ex-spouse agreed to provide their original identity documents and registration certificate at the appeal hearing. Accordingly, copies of these documents were included in the appeal bundles prepared by Sterling Law.  

The Judge was satisfied with the explanation as to why the client was unable to submit the documents with the original application. 

For that reason, the client was successful in their appeal for the residence.

 

 Tel. +44 (0) 20 7822 8535

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7183 7379

E-mail: info@sterling-law.co.uk

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.

Appeal allowed for Further Leave to Remain based on a qualifying child

The clients are Ukrainian nationals. They applied for a further leave to remain, based on their family and private life in the United Kingdom. 

First-tier Tribunal judge has dismissed their previous appeals against the refusal. The Judge ruled that the qualifying child can return to Ukraine with her parents. 

It was stated that the parents came to the UK to receive fertility treatments and conceive a child. Therefore, it was accepted that the immigration history of the parents should not be taken into account, when assessing the child’s best interests. 

However, in the previous appeal hearing, the Judge ruled that the client’s previous immigration history is a relevant factor. Hence, he stated it was reasonable for the family to return back to Ukraine.

 The clients have decided to launch another appeal against the decision to refuse Leave to Remain. 

The main argument of this appeal was that the child was born and brought up in the UK. Thus, it was not in the qualifying child’s best interest to leave the UK. 

The Judge in the previous hearing has not provided any powerful arguments and reasons when concluding their decision. However, as yet no application has been made by the qualifying child for British Citizenship, the judge ruled that if such application is received, the appeals can be reconsidered.

The Upper Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal.

The Family was granted Leave to Remain.

 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.

Right of Residence granted after divorce from EEA national

Due to the outstanding work of Oksana Demyanchuk, Solomiya Boyar, and Michael Carter, yet another client of Sterling Law was successful in their appeal at the First-tier Tribunal.

The client was previously married to an EEA national before divorcing. Accordingly, the client applied for a Residence Card as confirmation that they had retained their right of residence following the divorce by themselves. However, this application was refused. The client came to Sterling Law to seek assistance with the appeal.

The Home Office had refused the initial application. This was done on the basis that the Applicant has failed to evidence that his ex-wife was working when they divorced, and that he had been working since the divorce. 

Due to the through preparation of the bundles by Oksana Demyanchuk and her team, the appeal was successful. The Judge found that the evidence provided by Sterling Law showed that the client had in fact been working since the date of divorce. The Judge also found that the client’s ex-wife had been exercising Treaty rights at the time of the divorce, based upon the evidence provided. 

Accordingly, the Judge allowed the appeal, asserting that the Appellant is entitled to be issued with a Residence Card confirmation that they have retained their right to residence following their divorce. 

This excellent result means that the clients will now be issued a Residence Card due to the hard work and dedication of Oksana Demyanchuk and her team. 

 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

  Solomiya Boyar

E-mail: solomiya@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.

UK right of residence granted to Belarusian national after he divorced his EEA partner

Refusal rate seems to be particularly high in the immigration cases. This includes right of residence applications. Applicants then need to appeal against the Home Office decision, which is another procedural nightmare.

Retained Right of Residence in the UK after Divorce

Belarussian national divorced from his EEA National spouse in 2014. He still, however, had family ties in the UK (his brother was settled in the country).

Our client sought to retain his right of residence after separation from his partner – EU national. He had been fighting for 4 years before positive decision was achieved.

After the divorce was finalised in 2014, the client submitted an application to retain his right of residence (as per Regulation 10 of the EEA Regulations 2016). It was, however, refused because there was no enough evidence confirming that his ex-partner was working in the UK from the date the divorce petition was sent until the date his divorce was finalised.

He appealed against this decision and the appeal was dismissed as how the Judge said

“the Appellant had not shown he had made every effort to provide the required documents”

of his partner exercising the Treaty Rights at the date of the divorce. He only provided evidence up to the date the petition was sent.

Therefore, our client submitted another retain right of residence application in 2016 which was refused. The Home Office repeated the previously made decision as they still did not believe the EEA National to be exercising free-movement rights in the UK at the time of divorce. Then, we submitted EEA PR application in 2017 which was also refused based on the same grounds.

Senior solicitor, Shakir Hussain, assisted by immigration lawyer, Aliya Rimshelis, appealed against this decision and submitted evidence to court as

the refusal was contrary to the determination in our precedent-setting case Baigazieva vs Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA. There it was provided that the EEA National ex-spouse need only be exercising treaty rights until the date of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

Right of residence appeal, however, was complicated by difficult family circumstances our client faced.

In the midst of his appeal he had to leave the UK to support his mother in Belarus, who was undergoing cancer treatment. He, however, needed to return to the UK, to be present as a witness to his own appeal hearing. Our client applied for a Visitor visa, which was also refused.

Nevertheless, the judge was satisfied with the provided evidence and submissions that we helped to obtain, and the appeal was successful.

For more details on application of the UK immigration rules and EEA Regulations, please contact us directly:

Shakir Hussain, Senior solicitor

Email: shakir@sterling-law.co.uk

Phone: +44 (0) 20 7822 8535

 

Aliya Rimshelis, Corporate Immigration Lawyer

Email: aliya@sterling-law.co.uk

Phone: +44 (0) 20 7822 8535

 

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.

Appeal withdrawn by the Home Office after reviewing the grounds and supporting documents

Due to the outstanding work of Oksana Demyanchuk and her team, another client of Sterling Law was saved from going through the lengthy and stressful appeal process. The Home Office withdrew the decision that was to be subject of appeal.

The appeal was due to be heard in November 2018. However, 3 months prior to the scheduled hearing date (in August 2018), the Home Office withdrew their decision. This was done upon reviewing the documents submitted in support of the appeal.

In doing so the Home Office instructed that leave to remain should be granted to our clients.

The Home Office conceded that the original decision was not appropriate and appeal should be withdrawn accordingly. It was down to the strength of the grounds of appeal drafted by Oksana Demyanchuk and her team.

The clients had originally applied for leave to remain in the UK on private and family life grounds. Their 2 children were born in the UK and have lived in the country for over 7 years continuously. The parents therefore asserted that it would be unreasonable for the family to leave the UK.

The initial application was refused and an appeal against the decision was lodged

The grounds asserted that in particular, there were no powerful reasons that required the removal of the children and so the decision was unlawful. An appeal bundle with countless documentary evidence was provided to the Home Office. Upon review of the documents together with the grounds of appeal, it was decided that a grant of leave was appropriate.

This excellent news mean that the clients will not be required to go through the costly and stressful process due to the hard work and dedication of Oksana Demyanchuk and her team.

 

Should you have any further questions, or would like to discuss your personal matter, please do not hesitate to contact us directly:

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

 

UK Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to enquire about the immigration and legal fees, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile / Viber: +447463382838, or via our online appointment booking form.