Tag: Refusal

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 If that is the case, the original decision will be withdrawn and your visa application reconsidered.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.

Straightforward Appeal with Little Opposition: Family Granted Leave

The Appellants include the father, mother and child, who are Philippine nationals, and were refused leave to remain in the UK. The appeal determination is simple, having been made in accordance with Paragraph 276ADE(iv) of the Immigration Rules and Article 8 of the ECHR, the only question that needed to be answered is whether it would be unreasonable to expect the child to return to the Philippines.

When answering the question at hand, it was stated by the Judge that “the Respondent does not identify a particularly clear or strong reason on which to refuse.”

The father entered the UK in November 2007, with the mother and child following in April 2009 as dependants, therefore the appellants had lawful residence for the entire period that they were in the UK.

Unreasonable for the Child to Leave

Moreover, the child entered the UK when she was six years old, having spent nearly nine years here, which is more than half her life. As the child spent her formative years here and having followed Azimi-Moayed [2013] UKUT 00197, when considering reasonableness, the residence of a child over the age of seven is likely to be more significant to a child than the first seven years of life. This places further emphasis on MA Pakistan [2016] EWCA Civ 705 that when a child has been in the UK for seven years or more, significant weight needs to be given on those years, there has to be powerful reasons to refuse leave one that has been established.

Finally, as the parents have proved that they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and public interest does not require their removal, the parents are also granted leave to remain on the basis of their child.

The appeal was allowed under Article 8 of the human rights grounds, and the determination of the First-tier Tribunal was promulgated on 30 January 2018. This successful appeal ensures that the child can continue to strive in her education in UK accompanied by her parents.

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.

Family with 7-Year Old Child Born in the UK Granted Leave to Remain

The Appellants are parents of a child born and raised in the UK. The parents entered the UK in 2007 and 2008 as either students or dependent spouses throughout their leave to remain in the UK with short periods of overstaying. They subsequently applied for leave to remain on the basis of their private life in the UK.

Following a decision by the Home Office to refuse the appellants’ applications for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom (UK), a successful appeal was heard at the Immigration and Asylum First-Tier Tribunal that granted leave to remain to the parents of a child born and residing in the UK for seven or more years.

Their application was initially refused because the Home Office stated that they did not meet the requirements set out in the Immigration Rules for the private life route, namely because the Home Office asserted that there would not be significant obstacles to their reintegration in Uzbekistan.

Having said that, the case concentrated on the child born in the UK where the decision must be made in accordance with Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 that the best interests of the child is the primary consideration. For this reason, a compelling argument was made for the appellants with regards to their child, namely that the child born in the UK would face severe discrimination in Uzbekistan or Russia due to language and cultural barriers, as well as having developed strong ties in the UK due to the child’s educational and cultural upbringing in the UK.

Additionally, Section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states that the public interest does not require a person’s removal where that person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK.

The appeal emphasised on the case of MA (Pakistan) [2016] EWCA Civ 705, which states that the fact that the child has been in the UK for seven years is given significant weight in the proportionality exercise and that this establishes a “starting point that leave should be granted unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary”. In summary, it was decided that the child’s best interest is to remain in the UK and that the parent’s poor immigration history of short periods of overstaying was not a powerful reason to the contrary.

Child born in the UK

Moreover, the case shed a light on what it means to be a ‘qualifying child’ who ‘has lived in the UK for a continuous period of seven years or more’. The Immigration Judge held that ‘continuous period’ is not interpreted so absolutely in the Immigration Rules whereby applicants can make visits outside the UK, not more than six months at any one time, and it would not count as a break in the continuous period of at least seven years required.

This case is a significant decision as it further reinforces the idea that it is unreasonable to remove a child that was born and residing in the UK for seven years or more from what they consider to be their country of origin. As such, both parents were successfully granted leave to remain on the basis of their child.

The appeal was allowed on human rights grounds, and the determination of the First-tier Tribunal was promulgated on 21 March 2018. As a result of this successful appeal, the parents can continue residing and enjoying their family life in the UK with their child.

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: 074 6338 2838, by e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Sole Responsibility Refusal Successfully Appealed in One Month

Another fantastic result for Sterling and Law Associates at the appeal hearing today. The case concerned 4 years old child who was refused UK visa to join her mother and stepfather in the UK. The reason for refusal was the issue of sole responsibility, despite the fact that child does not know her biological father.

As a result of unjust refusal by the Home Office, the little girl was separated from her mother and step-father and was temporary left under the care of her elderly grandmother, in Kyrgyzstan. Unfortunately, the grandmother was unable to properly look after child because of her health problems.

The appeal process usually takes 10-12 months from lodging the appeal until the successful outcome. However, in this case it was clear that any delay would have a negative effect on the child’s well-being.

When clients instructed Sterling and Law Associates in March 2018, our team worked really hard  to expedite the appeal and to achieve the positive outcome as soon as possible. The hearing was heard today, only 4 weeks after lodging the appeal, and the appeal was allowed almost immediately after just 15 minutes.

As a result, the child can finally be reunited with her parents in the UK without having to wait for the prolonged period of the appeal process.

The casework on behalf of Sterling & Law Associates LLP was handled by the immigration lawyer (OISC Level 3) Jelena Ivanova.

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: 074 6338 2838, by e-mail: contact@sterling-law.co.uk or via our online appointment booking form.

Successful appeal against refusal to issue Residence Card to Spouse of EEA national

The case resolved around a refusal by the Secretary of State (Respondent) to issue an EEA Residence Card to a Georgian national (Appellant) who is a spouse of an EEA national.

The reason for the refusal was that the Respondent was not satisfied that the relevant EEA national exercised Treaty rights.

The Home Office argued that there were discrepancies in evidence of work, relying on the case of Begum Pakistan [2011] UKUT 275. However, the Judge did not accept the Home Office’s argument, finding that the evidence provided was sufficient, and that the witness statements were credible, including the ones describing the EEA national’s employment circumstances and history in the UK.

As a result, the Appellant’s spouse was determined to be a worker for the purposes of the EEA Regulations, and the Appellant has successfully discharged the burden of proof.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Successful Appeal against Refusal to Issue a Residence Card to Spouse of EEA National

Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal case at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) challenging the Home Office’s refusal of a client’s application for residence card.

The appellant, a citizen of Colombia, entered the United Kingdom in April 2013 as a student. Later, he extended his visa for two more years. During the term of his visa he married a Lithuanian national and later applied for a residence card as a spouse of an EEA national under Regulations 7 and 17 of the Immigration Regulations 2016.

During consideration of the application, the couple was interviewed by the Home Office on their marriage and life together. The application was then refused on the basis that it had not been shown that the sponsor was working in the United Kingdom and, thus, was not recognised as a qualified person.

There are 5 status categories recognised as a qualified person: job-seeker, worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person or student.

In this case, no evidence of employment was provided at the date of application because the sponsor had just changed her job. The sponsor, however, had a long history of employment with some short intervals when she was unemployed but registered as a jobseeker. These particular issues were addressed at the hearing and sufficient evidence was provided on behalf of the client at the tribunal.

Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that the sponsor was a worker and that the evidence provided was credible and sufficient.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed on immigration grounds.

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.