Category: Successful Cases

Successful Application under “Surinder Singh” route

A fantastic result from Oksana Demyanchuk and her team. The client of Sterling & Law Associates applied for entry clearance under Regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 under “Surinder Singh” route and it was approved within 2 weeks.

Regulation 9 of the EEA Regulation reads as follows:

Family members of British citizens

9.— (1) If the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied, these Regulations apply to a person who is the family member (“F”) of a British citizen (“BC”) as though the BC were an EEA national.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) BC—

(i) is residing in an EEA State as a worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person or a student, or so resided immediately before returning to the United Kingdom; or

(ii) has acquired the right of permanent residence in an EEA State;

(b) F and BC resided together in the EEA State; and

(c) F and BC’s residence in the EEA State was genuine.

(3) Factors relevant to whether residence in the EEA State is or was genuine include—

(a) whether the centre of BC’s life transferred to the EEA State;

(b) the length of F and BC’s joint residence in the EEA State;

(c) the nature and quality of the F and BC’s accommodation in the EEA State, and whether it is or was BC’s principal residence;

(d) the degree of F and BC’s integration in the EEA State;

(e) whether F’s first lawful residence in the EU with BC was in the EEA State.

It can be incredibly difficult for an Applicant to show that they and their Sponsor have moved the center of their life to another Member State. However, this was not an issue for our clients, as due to the advice and preparation by Oksana Demyanchuk and her team, their application was successful and entry clearance was granted within 2 weeks!

Should you have any questions regarding EEA Applications under Surinder Singh, 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.

Successful appeal following refusal of permanent residence on the ground of marriage of convenience

The client, a national of Ukraine married a Lithuanian citizen. The Ukrainian national was then issued with a 5-year residence document, as a family member of EEA national in 2011. In 2016, the client applied for a permanent residence card on the basis of the same relationship but his application was refused. The ground was that the marriage entered in 2011 was of “convenience”. (Within the terms of Regulation 2 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006, the Regulations then in force). 

Sterling Law’s experienced lawyers lodged a notice of appeal on behalf of our client. We appealed on the grounds that the Secretary of State had gone against the client’s right to respect for family and private life. There was, therefore, a breach of the duty owed to the client under Community treaties. 

At the hearing, oral evidence was given on behalf of both parties. Counsel instructed by Sterling Law suggested that

The evidence from the third party has not posed any significance on the nature of the relationship. In addition, the Secretary of State was suggesting that there had been a failure to divorce rather than addressing whether this was a marriage of convenience or not. 

It was a delight that through prepared bundle by the lawyers at Sterling Law the judge was satisfied that the client and his wife had a genuine relationship as partners since they were married.  Our lawyers included evidence of cohabitation, a number of photographs taken on different occasions as well as other evidence. 

UK Immigration & Legal Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to inquire 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 to parents of a qualifying child following countless refusals

Sterling Law represented clients from Ukraine in an appeal after countless refusals of leave to remain. 

 The Home Office denied leave to remain of a minor and her parents. This is despite her being a qualifying child (child with more than 7 years residency in the UK). Since the refusal, the Secretary of State was ordered countless times to reconsider the application taking into account paragraph 276ADE(iv) of the Immigration Rules. However, the Secretary of State had time and time again failed to do so. 

Sterling Law instructed the Counsel, who argued that the judge should essentially look at whether our clients should have received leave to remain in 2013. At the time the daughter was a minor. The judge proceeded to consider all circumstances at that time and the core of the application. The judge agreed that it would be unreasonable for the daughter to leave the UK. This is because she had seven plus years of residence. In addition, her parents should have received leave to remain with her. This is within the terms of paragraph 267ADE(4) of the Immigration Rules.

The Judge found that in 2013 the daughter met the paragraph 276ADE(iv) of the Rules and therefore came within Article 8 within the Rules and her parents outside of the Rules based on the family life.

This was found to be the fair and proportionate position in 2013 had the Secretary of State properly addressed the issues when they were given multiple opportunities to do so. 

 

Josephine Smith

Immigration Lawyer (OISC Level 3)

Phone: +44 (0) 20 7822 8535

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7183 7379

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

To book appointment online please click HERE

 

UK Immigration & Legal Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular immigration case and to inquire 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Victory for Our Client in the Employment Tribunal

Our client was employed as a bus driver and had 18 years of continuous employment. He had a clean record with no warnings or incidents. 

While driving in the rain, he had been involved in one unexplained low-speed accident which resulted in a collision with three parked cars and a fence. This caused about £40,000 of damage. He believed that the brakes on his vehicle had failed, although the employer had carried out tests and found nothing to be wrong.

There was video evidence of the bus journey, including in the driver’s cab. This showed that he was obviously awake and not distracted at the time that the accident occurred. 

The cause of the accident could only be complete unexplained negligence by our client, the driver, but he did not accept that. He disputed it from the very first time that the employer interviewed him. The company dismissed him within a couple of weeks, and his internal appeal was also unsuccessful.  

Attempts to negotiate a compromise were unsuccessful and this led to a hearing recently at Watford Employment Tribunal. One of the large ‘magic circle’ City law firms and their specialist employment barrister opposed us all along. 

Our employment solicitor, Kuldeep Clair, handled the case for us, and also advocated at the tribunal.

The decision of the tribunal came a month after a three-day hearing. We pointed out how the company had not considered theoretical alternative explanations for the accident, and how disclosure of the brake test reports had come extraordinarily late. The company’s culture of hostility to lawyers representing employees was also criticised; their HR appeals manager had been uncooperative and failed to look at the original decision afresh. 

The negative side was the following:

The tribunal felt that the employer can conclude the brakes were not faulty. This is in the light of all of the evidence, and lack of a positive alternative explanation from the client.

Decisions to dismiss are rarely black and white. They need to fall in a ‘band of reasonable responses’. A tribunal will always be looking at the overall reasonableness of the employer’s decision taking account of the full circumstances.   

However, we were successful in pointing out the procedural irregularities throughout. The tribunal decided that if the employer had adopted a proper procedure, there was a 30% possibility that the employer’s decision might have been in favour of our client. So, he received only a proportion of his full damages. However, that was enough to cover the trial costs. He fought the case as a matter of principle, and so he was pleased with the result. He had few ongoing losses as he found an alternative job three months after being dismissed in any event.

If you would like advice on any aspect of employment or business law, please contact us directly:

Kuldeep S. Clair

Consultant Solicitor 

kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk 

+44 7 484 614 090

First-tier Tribunal allows EEA Appeal on the spot

It is with great pleasure that we announce the First-tier Tribunal allowed yet another appeal on the spot. This was a welcoming and fantastic result for our client! Our successful Immigration lawyer Oksana Demyanchuk handled the matter.

In this case, the client had applied for permanent residence under the EEA Regulations as the former family member of an EEA national. The client was previously married to an EEA national but had since divorced. An application was therefore made on the basis that they had retained their right of residence in accordance with the EEA Regulations. 

The client had also been living in the UK in accordance with the EEA Regulations for 5 years. So Oksana’s team submitted an application for permanent residence on the basis that the client had retained their right of residence in the UK. 

The Home Office refused the application due to the following:

The client has failed to show that they met all the requirements of a person who has retained their right of residence in the UK in accordance with the EEA Regulations. 

Appeal against the decision of the Home Office

Oksana Demyanchuk then took over the case. She prepared the appeal and submitted all the relevant evidence to the Tribunal and Home Office.

At the appeal hearing, the First-tier Tribunal Judge found the following:

The client did, in fact, meet all the requirements of the EEA Regulations. (In respect to both retained rights of residence and permanent residency). Accordingly, the Immigration Judge allowed the appeal on the spot. The Judge’s decision reflects the hard-work and comprehensive approach in preparing for the appeal by Oksana Demyanchuk and her team. 

This result is brilliant news for our client, who can now rest easy knowing that their immigration matter has come to a successful conclusion.  

 

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.

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.