Settled Status for EU Citizens and Family Members in the UK after Brexit

Today, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid announced more details on the settled status for the EU citizens and their family members. In the official electronic notification, the Home Secretary stated that safeguarding the rights of EU citizens in the UK has always been the first priority and the agreement reached with the EU earlier this year did just that. The rights that EU citizens and their families currently have are protected which include access to healthcare, benefits and pensions.

Away from the negotiations, my team in the Home Office have been working hard to develop the service that you’ll use to get your settled status. This work will continue as we make sure that the system and processes are rigorously tested and meet every requirement ahead of the launch. Sajid Javid

According to the statement, the scheme will open later this year and the Home Office is on track to open the scheme fully by 30 March 2019. The deadline for applications to the scheme will be 30 June 2021.

More details of the suggested scheme including overview, eligibility requirements and application process have been released on the government’s website.

Settled Status Scheme for EU citizens and their family members living in the UK

The scheme will open fully by March 2019. The deadline for applying will be 30 June 2021. You may be able to apply after this date if you’re joining a family member in the UK.

Rights for citizens of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland are still being negotiated.

Getting settled status means you can continue to live and work in the UK for as long as you like. It will mean you’re eligible for:

  • public services, such as healthcare and schools
  • public funds and pensions
  • British citizenship, if you meet the requirements

Full details of the scheme are still subject to approval by Parliament.

Eligibility

To be eligible for settled status, you’ll need to:

  • be an EU citizen, or a family member of an EU citizen
  • have been living in the UK continuously for 5 years (‘continuous residence’)
  • have started living in the UK by 31 December 2020

If you’ve lived in the UK for less than 5 years, you’ll generally be eligible for ‘pre-settled status’ instead.

If you’re a non-EU citizen, you will need to show your relationship to an  EU citizen living here.

Continuous residence

Continuous residence means you’ve been in the UK for at least 6 months in each of those 5 years, except for:

  • one period of up to 12 months for an important reason (for example, to work or study)
  • compulsory military service

If you will not have 5 years’ continuous residence when you apply

You’ll generally get ‘pre-settled status’ instead. Pre-settled status means you can stay in the UK for a further 5 years. You can live and work here, and will have access to public funds and services on the same basis as you do now.

Once you have 5 years’ continuous residence you can apply for settled status.

Applying for settled status

The scheme will open fully by March 2019.

The deadline for applying will be 30 June 2021. You may be able to apply after this date if you’re joining a family member in the UK.

The application form will be online. You’ll be able to get support over the phone or in person if you need help doing things online.

Necessary Documents

When you apply, you’ll need proof of:

  • your identity
  • your residence in the UK, unless you have a valid permanent residence document or valid indefinite leave to remain
  • your relationship to a family member from the EU living in the UK, if you’re from outside the EU

Fees

The fee to apply (subject to approval by Parliament) will be:

  • £65 if you’re 16 or over
  • £32.50 if you’re under 16

It’ll be free to apply if:

  • you already have valid indefinite leave to remain or a valid permanent residence document
  • you’re applying to move from pre-settled status to settled status
  • you’re a child in local authority care

There will be support for the vulnerable and those without access to a computer.

Legal Assistance

 

New Fees: British Passport Applications
How to Apply for British Passport Online 
Apostille and Document Certification in London
Employment Rights in the UK

 

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular case and relevant immigration law requirements, please contact our immigration lawyers on tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, mobile: 07305848477 or 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.

Employee, Worker, or Self-Employed: Know your rights and liabilities

Are you an employee or worker? Are you a self -employed ‘contractor’?

Are you an employer? What are your rights and liabilities?

You may think you know the answer to these questions. But the answer may be different from what you imagine. Your position may be either better or worse than you think.

Difference in legal rights between ‘employees’ and ‘self-employed’

The former have certain rights such as the right to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy, maternity pay, holiday pay, statutory sick pay and others rights. The latter do not. Just to make things more confusing, there is a category in the middle, classed as ‘workers’, who have some of these rights, but not others.

Self-employed contractor recognised as a worker

In a leading case in the Supreme Court on 11 June 2018, it was decided that a plumber who had been working for Pimlico Plumbers Ltd apparently on a self-employed basis, paying with his own tax and NI, was still a worker for legal purposes.

He was therefore entitled to holiday pay and sick pay. This was mostly because of the degree of control exercised by the company over his work. He worked exclusively for Pimlico Plumbers Ltd, and drove their van, and wore the company uniform whilst at work. It was important that he was not acting as an independent entrepreneur, touting for work for himself for his own account.

This case reflects other decisions in this area involving drivers for Uber, Deliveroo, and Addison Lee.

In fact the Uber case is still continuing to the Court of Appeal and is yet to be heard. Other cases have been decided in favour of employers.

The crucial point of all of them, which should be borne in mind by businesses and individuals alike, is that the issue of ‘employment’ status is a factual decision in each case. It is a good idea to get professional advice about your position in good time, and have a reliable contract drawn up to reflect and solidify the true position.

However, even many lawyers who are not well-versed in employment law do not understand that even a contract cannot alter the legal position after the event, if the facts indicate that only a particular version of the legal position is correct on the facts.

We can help with either:

  • advising on how the law applies to your particular circumstances
  • drawing up a suitable agreement /contract
  • a dispute that has arisen on employment issues

If you would like advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact us directly by phone or email.

Contact our employment solicitor Kuldeep Clair directly:

Phone: +44 (0) 20 7822 8599

Mobile: +44 (0) 7484 61 4090

Fax: +44 (0) 870 23520 4427

E-mail: kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

Changes to the Immigration Rules: Tier 2 (General) Visa

The Home Office announced on 15 June 2018, changes to the Immigration Rules will affect a number of categories including Tier 2 of the Points-Based System.

Changes are being made to exempt doctors and nurses from the Tier 2 (General) limit. This is in response to the particular shortages and pressures facing the NHS at the current time, and the fact that the limit has been oversubscribed in each month since December 2017.

The changes will mean that health sector employers will be able to sponsor doctors and nurses without requiring restricted Tier 2 certificates of sponsorship or putting pressure on the limit. This will free up places within the limit for other key roles which contribute to the UK economy and other public services. The changes will be kept under review.

In all other respects, the change preserves the existing arrangements. This means that all applications for nurses, and all applications for doctors not currently recognised on the Shortage Occupation List, will continue to be required to demonstrate that they have met the requirements of the Resident Labour Market Test.

Doctors currently recognised on the Shortage Occupation List will continue to be exempt from the RLMT.

The following additional changes are being made to Tier 2 Visa category:

  • Amendments are being made so that applications for Restricted Certificate of Sponsorship for Croatian nationals no longer count towards the Tier 2 limit. This is because Croatian nationals will no longer need to apply for work authorisation in this category, owing to the lifting of transitional controls on the work rights of Croatian nationals on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of Croatia’s accession to the EU.
  • From 14 June 2012, the skills threshold for jobs sponsored under Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (ICT) increased from Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) level 4 to RQF level 6. The transitional arrangements, for those previously in these routes to extend their stay, are no longer needed and are being closed. Provisions for these migrants to apply for indefinite leave to remain are being retained. The Government signalled in March 2016 that this closure would take place in July 2018, and set this out in the published guidance for Tier 2 sponsors.
  • A change is being made to expand the restriction on Tier 2 migrants holding more than 10% of shares in their sponsor so as also to restrict such ownership being held indirectly, such as via another corporate entity.
  • A change is being made to the evidential requirements for Tier 2 migrants applying for settlement, who have been absent from work on maternity, paternity, shared parental or adoption leave. These applicants are additionally required to provide evidence of the underlying adoption or birth that necessitated their leave. These changes bring the requirements in line with similar requirements elsewhere in the Immigration Rules.
  • References to Find a Job, the service replacing Universal Jobmatch, have been included for the Resident Labour Market Test.
  • Minor drafting corrections are being made to correct the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code used for midwives. These corrections have no impact on the way applications for midwives are considered.

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

More information is available in the statement of changes.

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

New changes in the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Visa Category

New changes to the Immigration Rules were prepared and laid by the Home Office before Parliament on 15 June 2018. These changes will come into effect on 6 July 2018.

In addition to the removal of doctors and nurses from the Tier 2 visa cap there are a number of changes to other UK’s visa routes, including Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent), Tier 1 (Investor) and Tier 1 (Entrepreneur).

Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Visa Changes

The Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category is for talented individuals in the fields of science, humanities, engineering, the arts and digital technology to work in the UK without the need to be sponsored for employment in a specific post. The applicants must be endorsed by a Designated Competent Body.

The following changes are being made to this category:

  • Opening up the exceptional talent visa to include leading fashion designers. The endorsement of arts applicants is being widened to include those in the fashion industry who are operating leading designer fashion businesses. These applicants will be assessed by the British Fashion Council operating within the endorsement remit of Arts Council England.
  • Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) route has also been opened up to a wider pool of TV and film applicants, under the remit of ACE. This is due to the changes to the criteria and list of eligible awards for applicants in film and television.
  • Other changes are being made to the criteria for endorsement by each Designated Competent Body, at those bodies’ requests. These include changes to the evidential requirements for applicants holding a peer-reviewed research fellowship; and changes for digital technology applicants to reflect the rebranding of “Tech City UK” as “Tech Nation”.
  • Amendments are being made so that endorsements for Croatian nationals no longer count against the number of allocated endorsements available to each Designated Competent Body. This is because Croatian nationals will no longer need to apply for work authorisation in this category, owing to the lifting of transitional controls on the work rights of Croatian nationals on the occasion, this July, of the fifth anniversary of Croatia’s accession to the EU in July 2013.

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.

 

 

 

New UK start-up visa introduced by the Home Office

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

Tier 1 Investor Visa Extension

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

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

Success of the Application

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

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

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

Immigration Assistance

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

Home Office Unreasonable Conduct Incites Award of Costs Claims

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

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

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

Case Study

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal Success

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date and time:

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

Location:

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

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

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

Speakers:

Agenda:

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

The workshop will be followed by a networking reception.

Registration:

Admission is free by registration is required via Eventbrite.

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