Tag: Appeal

FAMILY REUNION IN THE UK

PARENTS ARE ABLE TO JOIN THEIR CHILD WITH A REFUGEE STATUS IN THE UK

Our clients, who are Ukrainian nationals, were initially refused to enter the UK. They wanted to join their refugee child who was living in the UK with her grandmother. The grandmother had been struggling to provide adequate care for the child because she also cares for her husband who suffers from complex healthcare needs. The family’s separation was because of the conflict in Crimea, where our clients continued to live during the appeal process.

Sterling Law successfully appealed the aforementioned refusal.

In accordance with AT and another v Eritrea [2016] UKUT 227 (IAC):
Decision to maintain separation of the family is a disproportionate breach of the appellants’ Article 8 rights. The importance of the best interest of the child and the clear interest in maintaining the family unit outweighs the need to maintain immigration control.

The Judge accepted the applicability of the aforementioned case, and thus, despite the fact that

  • neither of the appellants spoke English and
  • both were dependent,

the Appeal was allowed on the basis of Article 8 ECHR and our clients where granted entry clearance in the UK and reunited with their child.

Similar immigration problem? Do you believe the Home Office made a wrong decision? Contact our experienced lawyers for professional advice.

Book consultation here:

Or book a free 15 min phone call with us!

Or just email us:

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

AFTER FIVE REFUSALS CLIENT OBTAINED LEGAL IMMIGRATION STATUS IN THE UK

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Contact us should you have any immigration-related question:

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Contact us should you have any immigration-related question:

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

+44 (0) 207 822 8535

You can also text us via facebook.

EEA IMMIGRATION RULES: THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY IMMIGRATION ADVICE

Our client, a Brazilian National, joined her EEA national spouse in the UK many years ago. Later, her 2 children came to the UK to join their mother and stepfather. They all were granted residence cards several times. However, after 10-years in a relationship, our client got divorced. She and her children applied for permanent residence on the basis of the retained right of residence. However, their applications were refused.

 

The Home Office stated that our clients had not provided adequate evidence to show that their EEA national sponsor exercised his Treaty rights in the UK as a worker for a continuous period of 5 years.

At this stage, the family came to Sterling Law to seek Immigration advice.

In fact, two of the clients (mother and the youngest child) acquired Permanent Residence even in 2011 (under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016). However, as the older child turned 21 years after 4,5 years of continuous residency in the UK, he needed to show dependency on the EEA sponsor or his mother for remaining half a year to qualify for permanent residence. But during this time he was employed and was earning even more than his mother. Thus, he could not show the required dependency.

At this late stage, Sterling Law lodged an Appeal. The Judge was satisfied that sufficient evidence of ex-husband employment history was provided and thus, allowed the appeal in respect of mother and the younger child.

As the older child was not able to show dependency on his mother for the required period, he did not meet the requirements to obtain permanent residence. However, he is able to obtain leave to remain and Sterling Law is now lodging the application. But would he seek immigration advice before his 21st birthday, he might already become a British citizen.

 

Do not postpone your application.

Contact us should you have any immigration related question:

Nollienne Alparaque

Email: Nollienne@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

RETAINED RIGHT OF RESIDENCE

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

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

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

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

Alternative evidence of identity and nationality

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

 

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

 

Contact us should you have any immigration related question:

Jekaterina Trubina

Email: Jekaterina@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Shakir Hussain

Email: Shakir@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

ALLEGED MISUSING THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE IN THE UK

Excellent news! The appeal regarding removal directions for our client was allowed!

Our client, a national of Pakistan, married an EU national who is exercising treaty rights in the UK and has a permanent residence here. After entering the UK with an EEA family permit our client successfully obtained an EEA residence card. A year into the marriage, the wife’s sister tragically passed away in Brazil leaving behind four minor children. Deeply affected by this loss, our client and his spouse decided to adopt these children. So our client’s wife went to Brazil for around 6 months to resolve various matters regarding the adoption.

At the date his wife was returning to the UK Immigration Officers came to our client’s home and interviewed him.

  • His request to postpone the interview (he was not feeling well) was ignored.
  • The immigration Officers did not make any notes regarding this request.
  • They did not pay attention to the fact that our client’s wife returned to the UK on the interview date and it would be useful to interview her as well before making any immigration decision.
  • Moreover, Immigration Officers even made several offensive Islamophobic remarks regarding our client’s appearance.

Relying on the interview records the Home Office made removal directions for our client on the grounds that

he misused the right to reside in the UK since his EEA sponsor left the UK just one month after his arrival in the UK and has not returned since (that was wrong).

 

Sterling Law successfully appealed this decision pointing out that there was a specific reason for the wife’s absence (adoption). The judge allowed the appeal and found that the Home Office decision was disproportionate.

Thanks to our lawyers Jekaterina Trubina and Shakir Hussain our clients are able to continue their family life in the UK and care for the wife’s sister children after adoption.

 

Similar immigration problem? Do you believe the Home Office made a wrong decision? Contact our experienced lawyers for professional advice.

Book consultation here:

Or book a free 15 min phone call with us!

Or just email us:

contact@sterling-law.co.uk

Appeal allowed for a further leave to remain based on private life in the UK and financially dependent child

Nollienne Alparaque and the team were recently successful in an appeal case in the First-tier Tribunal.

In this case, the client has appealed against the refusal for a further leave to remain in the UK, in which they heavily relied on their private life in the UK and their financially dependent child of 20 years of age. The applicant is financially self-sufficient and has owned her business for over ten years. The client’s son is a University student, who failed to obtain a student loan to pay his university fees, as he did not have a three year visa. Due to not being able to finance his own education, as he has no savings and assets, the client’s son seeks full financial support from his mother during his university years.

The judge has considered the fact that the applicant’s son has been living with his mother before going to university, and continues to do so throughout his university years, as he is wholly reliant on his mother and does not lead an independent life. Furthermore, it was found that there is a clear financial and emotional dependency enabling the applicant’s son to complete his education without the applicant’s support. The judge noted that if the client had to leave the UK, she would not be able to run her business, which would make it no longer possible to generate the income required to support and pay for her son’s university education.

The outcome of this appeal was successful, as the judge ruled that under those circumstances it would be a breach of the right to a family life and the client’s son would be deprived in the event of his mother’s removal from the UK to pursue his education and career.

Domestic violence – Indefinite Leave to Remain

A VICTORY FOR OUR CLIENT IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

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

Domestic Violence Retained Rights Appeal Allowed!

Another fantastic result from Oksana Demyanchuk and her client after another successful appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

The client, in this case, came to Sterling & Law Associates LLP after her marriage to an EEA national had broken down on grounds of domestic violence. Accordingly, an application for a residence card on the basis of the retained right of residence was made to the Home Office.

However, this application was refused as the marriage between our client and her EEA national Sponsor has not lasted for at least 3 years and the Home Office was not satisfied that our client had been a victim of domestic violence as there was little documentary or no independent evidence to corroborate our client’s claim to have been the victim of domestic violence.

Accordingly, Oksana lodged an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the Home Office, asserting that the client’s claim to be the victim of domestic violence was credible and therefore the Home Office decision was unlawful.

As is often the case in matters involving domestic violence, our client had little tangible evidence to demonstrate that they were a victim of such violence. Therefore, Oksana has placed particular attention and emphasis on the witness statements in the appeal.

The Judge, accepting that evidence in cases of domestic violence is not always available, found that the evidence of our client and witnesses was credible and gave a detailed picture that our client was, in fact, a victim of domestic violence. In doing so the Judge noted the following:

“I am not confined or restricted to independent documentary evidence such as that which the respondent may usually seek in cases involving or alleging domestic violence. The absence of police and medical reports are not necessarily indicators that the appellant did not suffer or was not the victim of domestic violence.

There are a whole host of reasons why those who suffer domestic violence, and especially women victims of male perpetrators, are reluctant to report to the police and the authorities that they are such victims. The reasons can be multifarious and complex and this is well documented in much research and studies in the area of domestic violence.

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

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

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

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