Tag: ILR

UK-Born Child Diagnosed with Autism Granted Leave to Remain

A child diagnosed with autism was granted permission to stay in the UK after initial refusal by the Home Office.

Oksana Demyanchuk, Immigration Lawyer at Sterling Law, and her team appealed to the Immigration Tribunal a refusal of the Home Office in order to protect rights of the child. Parents of the child, both Ukrainian nationals, were also initially refused to stay in the UK.

Their son was born in the United Kingdom and was diagnosed as autistic. The boy, aged 7, has never been to Ukraine and communicates in English with very limited understanding of the Ukrainian language. Moreover, the child requires special care, support and has additional educational needs. These would not be adequately met in Ukraine.

These obstacles were initially ignored by the Home Office which served as the basis for the refusal.

It was also claimed by the Home Office that parents failed to provide sufficient evidence that child’s safety and welfare might be compromised if the family returns to Ukraine.

After seeking advice from Sterling Law the family was able to collect more evidence related to the case.

Appellants provided NHS records containing evidence of communication difficulties. They stated that the child would benefit from future advice and consultations. Additionally, the parents enclosed the letter from child protection and family services officer from the child’s school.

The letter acknowledged that the diagnosis would affect every aspect of learning and life. It will also impact the boy’s mental health and well-being if he returns to the country of origin of his parents. It was also proved that in this case the child will not have access to the same level of language and speech support.

The judge acknowledged the difficulties the boy would encounter upon return to Ukraine, such as cultural and language adaptation challenges. It was ruled, that it is in the best interest of the child to stay in the UK together with his parents. The family therefore was granted leave to remain.

The appeal was allowed under the Immigration Rules and on human rights grounds.

It was also stated that the previous decision to refuse permit contradicted the Home Office’s own policies.

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.

Out of Time Appeal Resulted in Settlement Decision for Our Client

Sterling Law encountered a young professional who valiantly fought against the incompetent bureaucracy of the Home Office. Eventually we managed to resolve our client’s case by achieving settlement status, however, she remained in legal limbo for 4 years and had to go through the countless red tape to continue her future in her adoptive country.

A Georgian national came to the UK on her student visa when she was only nineteen years old. On subsequent occasions she was granted leave to remain as a student. In 2014, she sought to progress her further education with a Master’s degree in the UK. Unfortunately, her application was refused. She was, therefore, put at risk of losing her status in the UK, jeopardising her future dreams and aspirations, and depriving her of the right to complete her education, which she had paid for. This was contrary to the principle of fairness under the common law.

The Home Office explained the refusal by failure to meet the financial visa requirements, which in fact, was not the case.

Our client erroneously did not credit the relevant bank account in time to demonstrate she has had enough funds. Despite her previous visa history, that clearly indicated client’s ability to support herself financially, Home Office refused her application instead of requesting further documents. The client requested reconsideration, which resulted into further refusal and notification to leave the country.

She then realised the need to seek a legal advice. Sterling Law managed to achieve an out of time appeal, meaning that she can stay in the country while her case was being resolved. The exceptional grounds for the out of time appeal was drafted by Sterling Law team including Managing Partner Ruslan Kosarenko, Principal Solicitor Navdeep Kaur Gill, Associate Nozima Rakhimjonova and Immigration lawyer Josephine Smith who fought vigorously and never lost faith in the client’s matter along the process.

Settlement Granted by Upper Tribunal

The case nevertheless had a very successful ending, due to the outstanding and committed effort of the Sterling Law team.

Our client described the final verdict of the Upper Tribunal as very overwhelming sensation as she had finally obtained her indefinite leave to remain in the country.

Legal Assistance

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.

Long Residence Appeal successful in the Upper Tribunal

Oksana Demyanchuk and the team were recently successful in a long residence appeal case in the Upper Tribunal.

The client had applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain on the basis of Long Residence. The application was subsequently refused by the Home Office due to excessive absences. An appeal was lodged against the decision by Sterling Law.

The Judge of the First-tier Tribunal noted that an abundance of evidence had been provided by the Appellant in support of his appeal.

Long Residence & Absences

Based on the evidence submitted in support of the appeal, it was accepted by the Judge that, while the Appellant had in fact exceeded the permissible number of days absent, there was a reasonable explanation for many of the absences and, as such, the Home Office was wrong not to exercise discretion in favour of the Appellant. The Judge found that

the Respondent’s decision fails to provide any insight whatsoever as to what factors, if any, the Respondent took into account in concluding that there were no “compelling or compassionate circumstance” arising in this case to warrant the exercise of her discretion in relation to the assessment under para 276B or 276 (1) ADE

The Judge then went on to assess Article 8 ECHR and allowed the appeal, being satisfied by the evidence provided, that the Appellant had built an extensive family and private life in his time in the UK and that it would be disproportionate to remove the Appellant from the UK. Accordingly, the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal on human rights grounds.

The Home Office then sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and was granted permission on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge’s assessment proportionality in respect of Article 8 was flawed.

The Upper Tribunal went on find that the First-tier Judge has directed herself appropriately and made appropriate findings. The Tribunal found that there had been no material error of law made by the First-tier Judge and that, therefore, the decision allowing the Appellant’s appeal based on Article 8 should stand.

Should you have any further questions, or think any of the above may apply to your matter, please do not hesitate to contact us directly:

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

 

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, or via our online appointment booking form.

Requirements for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of long residence in the UK

Those migrants who have accrued 10 years’ lawful residence in the UK may be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain (settlement).

However, simply residing in the UK lawfully for 10 years continuously is in itself not sufficient to be eligible for indefinite leave to remain on this basis.

Indefinite Leave Requirements

In order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain based on long residence, the following requirements must be met by Applicants.

Firstly, an applicant must have valid leave to remain in the UK at the time of application. In other words, an Applicant must be lawfully resident in the UK when they make an application for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of their long residence. This leave can be in any immigration category.

Applicant must also have been in the UK for 10 years lawfully and kept to the terms and conditions of their visas. It is possible to combine periods of leave in any immigration category when applying on the basis of long residence. However, it is important that, firstly, there are no gaps between visas that may break an Applicant’s continuous residence, and, secondly, the Applicant complied with the terms of all their visas while in the UK.

Secondly, if and Applicant is aged 18 to 65 years old, they must meet the knowledge of language and life (KoLL) in the UK requirements. All those applying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) under a route which requires KoLL, must meet both parts of the requirement, unless they are exempt because of their age or because of a physical or mental condition.

There are two aspects to KoLL, namely knowledge of language and knowledge of life in the UK, that must be met by an Applicant applying to settle in the UK.

Finally, and most importantly, Applicants must be able to demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the UK. In the case of R (Nesiama & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1369, the Court of Appeal recently gave guidance on what constitutes “residence” in the UK.

Physical Presence

In this case the Court of Appeal found that “residence” in the UK means “physical presence” in the UK.

It was argued in the above case that “residence” should be assessed taking into account factors such as property, payment of taxes and other connections to the UK, rather than simply “physical presence”.

However, the Court of Appeal was not convinced by this argument and held that in order to be considered resident in the UK, an Applicant needs to be physically present in the UK. Therefore, excessive absences, other than are for the purpose of assisting with a national or international humanitarian or environmental crisis overseas, or due to “serious or compelling reasons”, can effect an application for indefinite leave to remain regardless of whether an Applicant’s home is in the UK.  

Therefore, it is advisable to seek professional legal help before making any applications for indefinite leave to remain based on your long resided to ensure you do in-fact qualify.  

Should you have any further questions please contact our legal advisers directly: 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk 

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

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, or via our online appointment booking form.