Tag: Article 8

Entry Clearance Refusal of Six-Year-Old Child under Sole Responsibility Successfully Appealed

The Appellant, a six-year-old child, applied for entry clearance as a child whose mother has sole responsibility and stays in the UK as a partner of a British citizen under Section EC-C of the appendix FM of the Immigration Rules . The child was consequently refused by the Entry Clearance Immigration Officer. The refusal was successfully challenged by Sterling and Law Associates LLP at the First-tier Tribunal in April 2018.

The reason for the refusal was based on relationship requirement, in particular, due to lack of evidence of sole responsibility. Other requirements were uncontested by the Entry Clearance Officer.

Our client appealed on the grounds that the decision is not in accordance with the Immigration Rules and is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being incompatible with the Convention rights.

The mother of the appellant submitted that she has sole practical responsibility for the child from the age of two and that the appellant has no contact with the biological father for more than two years. In addition, the appellant`s mother took all decisions about the child as no one has had any significant input in child`s life since then.

Sole Responsibility

Following incorrect application of the test in the assessment of the sole responsibility by the Entry Clearance Officer in our client`s case the leading authority regarding the sole responsibility which has been applied in the court was TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): “sole responsibility”) Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049 which establishes that “sole responsibility” is a factual matter to be decided upon all the evidence. Last but not least, the Entry Clearance Officer failed to exercise the statutory duty under s55 of BCIA, which considers the welfare of the child.

Following the above, the Immigration Judge found that the Appellant`s mother has sole responsibility for the child. The Judge also confirmed that the decision interferes the family life of the mother and the child and that Article 8 of ECHR is engaged.

The appeal was allowed under Article 8 of the ECHR on human rights grounds, and the determination of the First-tier Tribunal was promulgated on 18 April 2018. This successful appeal ensures that the child can enter the United Kingdom to join mother and stepfather.

Refusals & Appeals: Immigration Assistance

The appeal was straightforward, with little opposition and clear facts, the family were granted their leave to remain in the UK. The Home Office may make mistakes in their decision-making, so it can be worth bringing your refusal to court to overturn any errors they may make.

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

Appeal allowed on grounds of private and family life despite deception in previous immigration application

An Uzbekistan national (Appellant) was refused a leave to remain in the UK when she could not demonstrate that she meets English language requirements, and subsequently refused a right to remain in the UK on the basis of her family life in the UK for the use of deception in her previous immigration application through using a proxy speaker during the English language test.

However, the refusal by the Secretary of State (Respondent) was successfully challenged and appeal was allowed on the human rights grounds.

The Appellant used deception when undertaking English language test for her student visa application and its extension.

The main question for the Judge was whether it is in the public interest to allow someone who has used deception in order to extend her leave to remain in the UK under Article 8.

The Judge has noted that it was important to consider the history of proceedings: an appeal to the refusal was initially allowed but reconsidered by the Respondent and the decision reversed. Furthermore, the issue of deception had been considered by the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in previous proceedings.

The Appellant formed a family life in the UK with her husband, in the belief that the issue of deception had been determined in the previous proceedings. This, together with the interference in the family life of the Appellant’s husband, were the material reasons to allow the appeal.

However, the Judge noted that he would not normally allow the appeal on these facts, had it not been for the history of the proceedings and insurmountable obstacles the Appellant’s husband would face if they had to move to Uzbekistan. 

Refusals & Appeals: Immigration Assistance

For expert advice and assistance in relation to your particular case, refusals and relevant immigration law requirements, please contact our immigration lawyers on Tel. +44(0)20 7822 8535, Mobile/Viber: 074 6338 2838, by e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Two refusals yet not a final decision: Successful appeal on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal at the First Tier Tribunal challenging a refusal of a clients application for a leave to remain.

The appellant, a citizen of Uzbekistan, entered the United Kingdom as a student in 2006 and she was granted further leave to remain in that capacity until 2013 when she was unable to demonstrate that she met English language requirements. The reason for this was that Home Office believed that the appellant used deception to pass her English language test.

She appealed against that decision and it resulted to be a further refusal with no right of appeal. She applied for permission to remain in the UK on the grounds of her family life with her husband, the UK citizen. She had been in the UK for 10 years, working, living a family life and also doing charitable work in her area together with her husband. Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that despite the fact that she used deception in her previous application for a student visa, it would be unreasonable and unjust for the appellant to be forced to come back to Uzbekistan. It would be wrong to intervene the family life of this couple.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Successful appeal on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal process at the First-tier Tribunal challenging a refusal of a client’s application for a Tier 2 (General) visa and of his dependants.

A victim of fraud by his previous legal representative, the appellant inadvertently submitted fraudulent documents to the Home Office with his Tier 2 (General) application. As soon as he realised the documents were false, he sought our advice and assistance. We immediately acted to inform the Home Office of the situation and made further representations on behalf of our client based on his family and private life in the UK.

The Home Office took a year to consider the outstanding application, but eventually refused the application due to the submission of the false documents.

Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the judge found that there was no public interest in removal of the person but, to the contrary, he was a witness in the criminal proceedings against his previous legal representative initiated by the OISC.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.