 Judge Emeritus & Solicitor |
 Partner |
 Managing Partner |
 Partner |
 Solicitor |
 Caseworker |
 Solicitor |
 Senior Lawyer |
 Solicitor |
 Solicitor |
 Trainee Solicitor |
 Paralegal |
 Paralegal |
 Family Solicitor |
 Trainee Solicitor |
 Billing Administrator |
 Office Administrator |
 Public International Lawyer |
 Solicitor |
 Immigration Caseworker |
Dealing with a refusal of your immigration decision can be extremely worrying and stressful. It is crucial to understand the UK immigration Appeals procedure and the judicial review process in order to successfully challenge the Home Office decision.
Appeals Procedure
You can only appeal to the Tribunal if you have the legal right to appeal. You will be usually notified of your right to appeal in your decision letter. We will be able to review your refusal letter thoroughly, and advise you of your options accordingly.
You will generally have the right to appeal if the Home Office has refused you application based on:
First -Tier Tribunal
If you are appealing within the UK to the immigration and Asylum Chamber, you must give notice of appeal to the Tribunal no later than 14 calendar days after the date the notice of decision has been sent. If you are appealing outside of the UK, you will have 28 days to submit an appeal after you get your decision. If, however, you have to leave the country before you are allowed to appeal, you will have 28 days to appeal once you have left the country.
The Appellant’s appeal will first be heard at the First-tier Tribunal. The judge does not usually give a decision on the day of the hearing. You will usually be informed of the decision in writing after three or four weeks.
If you receive a positive decision from the Tribunal, the Home Office may either reverse their original decision or appeal the decision given by the Judge. If, however, you receive a negative decision, you may be able to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, subject to the merits.
Upper Tribunal
If your appeal is refused at the First-tier Tribunal, you can apply for permission to appeal at the Upper Tribunal if you believe that the First-tier Tribunal judge made an error in their determination.
You are required to submit an application to the First-tier Tribunal to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal as this is not an automatic right. Your application for permission must be submitted within 14 days of the date of dismissal of your appeal from the First-tier Tribunal, if you are in the UK. If you are outside of the UK, the time limit is 28 days.
In the unfortunate event that the First-tier tribunal refuses your permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, you may have the option to apply directly to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal.
Once permission to appeal has been granted, the Upper Tribunal will hear the case and assess whether the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law.
The judge will decide whether any findings of fact made by the First-tier Tribunal are to be preserved. At this stage the judge may uphold the First-tier Tribunal decision, or the judge may decide to send the case back to the First-tier Tribunal to re-decide the case. The judge may also give the First-tier Tribunal directions to make sure the error of law is not repeated.
If your case was heard at the Upper Tribunal but the judge decided that the First-tier Tribunal did not make an error of law, you may have the option of appealing to the Court of Appeal. You will need to apply for permission to do this.
If, however, you do not have the right of appeal, you may be able to apply for administrative review or apply for permission for a judicial review of the decision.
A judicial review is not the same as an appeal; an appeal looks substantively at the issues of your case. A judicial review is a form of court proceedings in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by the Home Office.
A judicial review can challenge the way a decision has been made, if you believe it was illegal, irrational, or unfair.
An application for judicial review should be made no later than 3 monthsafter the decision that you are trying to challenge was made.
Examples of when you may consider applying for judicial review
In a judicial review, the judge will not substitute what the correct decision is. If your application is successful, your case will be sent to the Home Office for them to make a decision on it. The Home Office may make the same decision, providing that they have followed the proper process, such as considering all the documents provided by you.
Challenging a refusal is a complex and time-consuming procedure.
Our Solicitors have a strong track record of successfully representing our client in the immigration Tribunals and the High courts. Our in-house advocacy team are specialist immigration Solicitors with a combined experience of over 60 years, and are overseen by our former immigration judge and senior immigration consultant Mr Paul Gulbenkian.
OTS Solicitors is regarded as one of the best immigration, Employment and commercial law firms in the London. If you need legal advice, please contact our offices on 0203 959 9123 to discuss your matter with one of our dedicated immigration solicitors.
Our Solicitors have a strong track record of successfully representing our client in the immigration Tribunals and the High courts. Our in-house advocacy team specialist immigration solicitors with a combined experience of over 60 years and overseen by our former immigration judge and senior immigration consultant Mr Paul Gulbenkian. The only barristers that we work with are specialists in immigration law and expert advocates in court who are highly regarded for their litigation and court experience. Some of the high profile work of our solicitors and barristers are listed below:
LC(Kenya) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ – In an appeal to the Court of Appeal our client was successfully represented to proceed to a full and finally Appeal as it was found that there were merits in challenging the Home Office and the Upper Tribunals decision to ignore Country Guidance cases and material evidence when deciding on the Appellants Asylum and Human Rights claim. The client's appeal was allowed and the Home Office have agreed to pay his legal costs.
IO (Nigeria) v SSHD [2013] EWHC – In judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) in connection to the correct application of the new immigration Rule, and unlawful interference with client’s Article 3 [inhumane and degrading treatment] and 8 [respect for private and family life] rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The Secretary of State conceded and awarded the Applicant an in-country right of appeal and agreed to pay the client’s reasonable costs. The client has succeeded in having his Asylum claim heard in the UK and we successfully stopped any enforcement for his removal and ensured his release from detention.
DV (South Africa) V SSHD [2013] EWHC – In a judicial review challenging the Secretary of States’ refusal decision in respect of the unlawful interference with the Applicant’s Article 8 ECHR rights and no right of appeal. The Secretary of State conceded and went on to reconsider Applicant’s FLR (O) and to award an in-country right of appeal. The Client and her family were awarded leave to remain in the UK. They have continued to enjoy their family life and following an application for naturalisation their children are British Citizens.
At OTS Solicitors we are ready to discuss your Appeal or judicial review case, and a member of our UK immigration and advocacy team will be please to take your call or email enquiries. Please therefore contact OTS Solicitors on 0203 959 9123 or contact us online.
For a more detailed discussion regarding your case, or to book an appointment with a member of our Individual Immigration team, please call us now on 0203 959 9123
The client, a Chinese national entered the UK on a student visa. Prior to instructing OTS Solicitors, and following her graduation, she attempted to establish a business in the UK and remain in the country as a Tier 1 (entrepreneur) migrant. However, this application failed due to insufficient evidence of being a genuine entrepreneur.
Refusal on the Basis of TOEIC Centre
After the failure of Tier 1 entrepreneur application, she secured a job offer and was offered a sponsorship for that position. As at that time she was still on her Tier 4 visa, with the assistant of an oisc immigration agent she applied in country to switch to Tier 2. The application was initially refused due to a claimed deception, as the client had omitted to disclose the Tier 1 refusal. After a new application in the same category, where the client provided explanation in regards to the omitted information, another refusal was issued, on the basis that when she was applying to extend her student visa, she had used a TOEIC centre that was later on found to have participated in fraudulent scheme that allowed some applicants to use deception to pass the test. On this basis, the Home Office found that our client had obtained her previous leave using deception and therefore her application was refused.
In-country right of Appeal against TOEIC Decision
The client, of course, vehemently denied any wrongdoing. She instructed a solicitor before coming to OTS to challenge this refusal. As the application had been submitted in 2015, prior to the changes to the right of appeal, the decision carried an in country right of appeal. An appeal was lodged and the client approached OTS solicitors after receiving a hearing date, as she wished to desist instructing her previous solicitors.
Instructing OTS Solicitors & Amendment of Grounds of Appeal
Our firm's Appeals and Litigation team appraised the case and the available material and advised the client on the merits of her appeal. They further made a decision that the grounds of appeal needed to be amended to strengthen the case. Having carefully analysed the client’s case, it was decided by our specialist lawyers that the best venue for a successful appeal was to challenge the Home Office refusal decision on two grounds. On the one had the fact that the Home Office had not discharged from the duty to prove that the client had committed a fraud and had sat a TOEIC examination through a proxy or otherwise implemented illegal tactics to pass the examination. The Home Office was relying on a general expert report without any direct evidence implicating our client into such a fraudulent activity. This ground was fully argued to clear our client’s name who had been unfairly accused of dishonesty and deception.
The second ground that was put forward, was in relation to the client’s private and family life. The client was in a relationship with a British Citizen for over two years. This line of argument had been completely left out from the appeal and therefore necessitated the grounds to be amended.
Based on the advice given by our appeals and litigation team, the client decided to instruct on submitting amended grounds of appeal. Properly argued grounds of appeal were drafted by a barrister and submitted.
Preparation for the Appeal Hearing
Following these initial stages, our team started working on the preparation for the hearing, in conjunction with the counsel. Detailed statement was taken from the appellant and several other attendees of the same examination. This was aimed at showing that the client was familiar with the set-up of the examination centre and the process was of the assessment itself, aiding to the argument that the Client had, in fact, taken part in the assessment. Further to this, evidence of the knowledge of English prior to the assessment was provided, showing that e client had no probable cause for cheating.
Apart from the aspects dealing with the allegations of deception, our appeals team worked hard to produce evidence of the client's private and family life and to evidence why returning back to her country of origin to continue their family life there was not an option.
TOEIC Refusal Decision Challenged & Appeal Allowed
This appeal was allowed on both grounds, under the immigration rules and the Human Rights.
The client, a national of a non-EEA member country, entered the UK on a Tier 1 investor visa, having previously resided in the UK as a student.
Re-Entered the UK as Tier 1 investor after gratuation
While in the UK on the student visa, the client continued working for her family's business back home, acting as liaison for the business in the UK, the US and several EU countries. After graduating from her studies in the UK, she left the country and after a while, returned back to the country on as Tier 1 (investor) migrant.
High Profile Investigations
During the client's residency in the UK as a Tier 1 investor and before her leave would expire, a high-profile investigation was launched in the US that among other businesses implicated the client’s family business and the client personally into alleged counterfeiting activity. Investigations in Germany into the same business activity followed. The client's country of origin took advantage of these investigations that were being carefully followed by the media and claiming it was part of an anti-corruption and fraud campaign started against our client and several of her associates. The techniques applied by the authorities to carry out the investigations amounted to persecution of our client and others implicated. Some of her associates were imprisoned without due process. As a result of the investigation in the country of origin, a red notice was issued by the INTERPOL on our client's name. Our client was effectively in impossibility to travel and was under constant threat of being arrested on the basis of the Interpol notice.
Previous Solicitors
The client was advised by her previous solicitors to claim Asylum. The claim failed, as the Home Office found the criminal charges brought against our client to be an evidence of prosecution not persecution and therefore not being covered by the Refugee convention. Particular weight was attached to the fact that there were western jurisdictions that were also bringing charges against the client and the businesses she had worked with.
Instructing OTS Solicitors Appeals and Litigation Team
The client approached OTS Solicitors to represent her case in the appeal. At that point, as a result of her Asylum claim, her Tier 1 investor visa had been cancelled and the Client had no alternative basis to stay in the UK apart from the ongoing appeal.
Cross-Border Jursidictions
As the case involved complex issues and cross-border jurisdictions, our Appeals and Litigation team conducted a thorough initial assessment of the case, prior to lodging the appeal. The client was meticulously advised of the strengths and weaknesses of their case, of the evidence that would be required of them to produce to strengthen the claim and on the procedures. Throughout the entire time, our Appeals and Litigation team maintained contact with the client and their overseas legal representatives, closely monitoring the development of the overseas investigations and their outcomes.
Adjournment and Best Chances of Success
To give the client the best chance of success, our team asked for adjournment of the initial hearing on the basis that the outcomes of the overseas investigations where crucial to the Asylum claim and there were clear indications that the criminal cases brought against our client in the US and German jurisdictions were going to be dismissed. Although adjournment was initially refused, our team managed to secure adjournment of the hearing on different bases, on the date of hearing. Having succeeded on this first step, the team continued to work tirelessly to secure the best result for our client.
Overseas Representative
Our Appeals and litigation team continued to maintain close contact with the overseas representatives and monitor the cases that eventually were dismissed, all the charges against our client being dropped in the US and Germany. The country of origin, however continued to persist in their criminal proceedings against our client.
UK Human Rights Obligation and Violations of Refugee Convention
Before the Tribunal, evidence was produced of the country’s record of Human Rights violations during the investigations of crimes, together with evidence that fair trial was unlikely to be accessible to our client. Further to this, evidence was produced on the prison conditions in support of the argument that returning the client to her country of origin knowing that the custodial sentence was highly likely to be applied, was already a violation of the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Appeal Allowed on Human Rights Article 3 Grounds and Refugee Convention
The client’s appeal was allowed and it was considered that returning the client to her country of origin would result in the UK’s breach of obligations under the Refugee convention, as they would face violation of their rights under Article 3 and of the European Human Right Convention.
Our client, KK, a national of Lebanon arrived to the UK in 2007 with his wife and two young children. He came as a work permit holder. During his stay in the UK, the employer became insolvent and the business was continued under different company. Our client was not correctly advised at the time of his obligations to inform the Home Office of his change of employer and carried on with his activities.
After reaching the required five year period for settlement, our client applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain. At this point he and his family had fully adapted to the British way of life and from an employee he had become a successful businessman, employing considerable amount of workers.
After a lengthy delay, our client's Indefinite Leave to Remain application was refused due to lack of compliance with his duties to inform the Home Office of change of employers.
Our client approached OTS Solicitors seeking advice and assistance on challenging the decision. As the decision was made under the old rules, it carried right of appeal and our immigration litigation lawyers advised the client on his options and grounds for challenging the refusal. Our client was advised that due to his lengthy presence in the UK, his family ties in the country, he had a strong family and private life grounds for challenging the refusal of his Indefinite Leave to Remain application. He was further advised that due to the length of his children's stay in the UK and their full integration into British society, the rule regarding the child's stay in the UK for more than 7 years was considerably adding weight to the strength of his family's case.
Our team of immigration lawyers specializing in appeals and immigration litigation took over the case and prepared the grounds of the appeal challenging the decision. After the hearing date was notified to our offices by the immigration and Asylum Tribunal, we worked closely with the client advising and assisting him in compiling the evidence to put before the Tribunal. Our team of lawyers also constantly liaised with the Counsel instructed by our firm on behalf of the client, to make sure that the client's and his witnesses' statements and evidence were covering all the issues to be raised during the hearing.
Our client's appeal was allowed on the grounds of family and private life as advised by our immigration litigation team, with considerable weight being given to the fact that he had extended family in the UK, who would be affected by their removal and with acknowledgement that our client's children would have succeeded in their claim to remain in the UK in any event, irrespective of the extended family presence, due to the length of their stay and degree of integration into this country.
This work was carried out by Principal Solicitor Teni Shahiean and immigration Lawyer Dr. Lusine Navasardyan.
To find out how we can help you with your immigration appeal, please phone our London office on 0207 936 9960, to talk to one of our experienced immigration Solicitors.
Our client, Mr BH, is an Egyptian citizen. He brought a claim under s.82(1) of the Nationality, immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for entry clearance in order to join his father, who was also an Egyptian refugee. Our client is a 21 year old student at an Egyptian university, whose father was a loyal supporter of Egypt’s previous President, Mohamed Morsi. His father came to the UK after a string of events which occurred whereby our client’s family were subjected to abuse, violence, and persecution due to the political association of our client’s father. Soon after our client’s father came to the UK as an Asylum seeker, and our client’s mother and younger sister soon joined him in the following months. Our client’s application unrepresented by OTS Solicitors at the time, and was denied his application in 2015 on the grounds that he did not satisfy the requirement under para.352D (ii) of the immigration Rules which requires that person with refugee status who seeks leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom in order to join or remain with their parents to be under the age of 18. He then approached OTS Solicitors to make an appeal against this outcome.
Grounds of a successful appeal
When the appeal was brought to a First Tier Tribunal, the judge decided to also consider s.117B of the immigration Rules and the case of Ghising (family life - adults - Gurkha policy) [2012] UKUT 160 and Gurung & Ors [2013] EWCA CIV 8. The judge rejected the application of para.352D on the following grounds: it was decided that although our client was a young adult, whose English language capability was not known, was a student at an Egyptian university, and there was no evidence of financial independence, the judge took the view that our client was emotionally and financially dependent on his parents, especially due to the fact that his father is victim of persecution and cannot return to his country of origin. The Judge also pointed out that the immigration Rules do not make any provisions for young adults that are refugees, which he considered to be a repudiatory breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950.
This case was a success due to the application carried out by OTS lawyers
BA, who is originally from Nigeria, came to us after two discretionary leave to remain applications had been declined without right of appeal and the Court refused to grant her leave for a judicial review as to why a right of appeal was refused.
BA had been an overstayer in the UK for eleven years; however, she was married to a British national, and had a baby boy who was born in the UK.
How we Helped
If an individual has overstayed their visa entitlement, they are entitled to apply for Discretionary leave to remain in the UK on the basis that by removing them from the country, the UK Border Agency would be breaching the Government’s obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 states that a person has the right to a private and family life.
BA had clearly created a family life here in the UK; therefore, we made a fresh application under Appendix FM EX1. Paragraph EX1 can be used to apply for leave to remain in the UK by a person who has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child, who is under 18 years, a British citizen, and for all intents and purposes, cannot be expected to leave the UK if the parent is removed.
Our application was successful, and BA now has leave to remain in the UK with her husband and son, free from any immigration worries.
This work was carried out by Principal Solicitor Teni Shahiean and Senior Caseworker Nataliya Bondarets.
To find out how we can help you with your immigration issue, please phone our London office on 0207 936 9960, to talk to one of our experienced immigration Solicitors.
Mr B was a Nigerian national with four dependents, (a wife and three children). The entire family had overstayed their visa and were facing deportation.
We assisted Mr B in preparing a strong application to stay in the UK on Human Rights grounds with a view to being granted an appeal to challenge the Home Office decision. With sucessfully obtaining a right of appeal we worked along side the UK's best immigration barristers and a team of soliciotrs from our firm ensured that every detailed aspect of the case was presented to the immigration Judge for a sucessful outcome. We were pleased to inform our client shortly after the heaering that they had been sucessful on Human Rights grounds and the whole family had been granted leave to remain in the UK.
Applications under Human Rights Grounds.
Most applications brought by overstaying families who want to remain in the UK are made under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to a private and family life, free from state interference.
Applicants can appeal under Article 8 if they can show that removal from the UK would result in unreasonable disruption to their family life. In order to succeed with an Article 8 appeal, it is imperative to instruct a recommended immigration Solicitor who has experience in such cases as they can be complex. OTS Solicitors have a proven track record of successfully appealing decisions from the Home Office on Human Rights grounds and achieving the best outcome for their clients at immigration appeal hearings.
This work was carried out by Principal Solicitor Teni Shahiean with the assistance of our Appeal team and Senior Caseworker Nataliya Bondarets.
To find out how we can help you with your immigration appeals and Human Rights application, please contact our London office on 0207 936 9960, to talk to one of our recommended immigration Solicitors.
Acting for Kenyan national in a Court of Appeal case in relation to a Human Rights Application on both Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Appellant fears return on account of his imputed political opinion and a challenge has been mounted with a view to Ordering the Secretary of State to reconsider the Appellant’s Human Rights and Asylum protection claim and to make a new decision in the best interest of the Appellant’s British children in the UK. The proceedings have been settled and the Respondent Secretary of State has admitted to conceeding that the previous immigration Appeal hearing was decided in error of the law. The Home Office have therefore addmitted that the case should be sent back to the previous court and have also confirmed the evidence that should be considered which they nor the court considered in unfairly refusing the clients case the first time. Home Office has also agreed to pay client's full legal costs subject to review.
Acted for client in judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) in connection to the correct application of the new Immigration Rule, and unlawful interference with client’s Article 3 [inhumane and degrading treatment] and 8 [respect for private and family life] rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). During the proceedings, through lengthy negotiations with the Treasury Solicitors, the SSHD conceded to reconsider client’s leave to remain application on both Article 3 and 8, and to waive any requisite fee for the application. The terms of consent settled by the parties also held the SSHD liable to pay the client’s reasonable costs.
As an immigration solicitor I never get use to the excitement and thrill of calling my clients and letting them and their family members know that they have been awarded their visa or settlement in the UK. In most cases they sense the excitement in my voice and they know before I’ve said anything. This is one experience every immigration solicitor can relate to, and year on year the satisfaction of telling the family you have worked so hard for to ensure they are finally allowed to remain in the United Kingdom lawfully and to make a positive contribution and enjoy a fulfilling life for themselves and their families becomes more and more rewarding.
In this case I was instructed by the client in judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’). The main issue in this case related to the correct application of the new Immigration Rule, and unlawful breach of client’s Article 3 [inhumane and degrading treatment] and interference with Article 8 [respect for private and family life] rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). During the proceedings, and through lengthy negotiations with the Treasury Solicitors, the SSHD conceded to reconsider client’s leave to remain application on both Article 3 and 8, and to waive any requisite fee for the application. The terms of consent settled by the parties also held the SSHD liable to pay the client’s reasonable costs. Following the judicial review and upon review by the Home Office of her decision, my client was granted leave to remain with her daughter also obtaining the same leave in line with her mother. My client recently received her biometrics residence permit and it was always very rewarding to work for her. Today she is in a position to make positive contributions to UK society and raising her daughter in a safe and stable environment.
Client A, a Georgian citizen had entered the UK without a visa in order to be reunited with his wife and daughter in the UK as his attempts to obtain entry clearance were repeatedly unsuccessful. A’s wife was from a different country and had leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 2 (General) worker with their daughter being her dependant. A remained here with his family and established strong ties to the UK. Before instructing our immigration solicitors, A had applied for his stay on the basis that his removal from the UK would separate him from his family, however the application had been refused.
A approach our head of immigration, Teni Shahiean to assist with challenging the refusal of his application to stay with his family. Teni Shahiean advised on a judicial review action to cancel the refusal letter and to be granted reconsideration with a right of appeal if the application was rejected following reconsideration. Moreover, evidence was obtained to demonstrate that if removed from the UK, A would be separated from his family for an indefinite period of time due to he and his wife being from different countries and also on the basis that any future entry clearance application to the UK would likely be refused and disproportionately interfere with his family life, as a re-entry ban would apply to any future out of country applications by the client.
With the assistance of Teni Shahiean and our immigration team a very strong judicial review was launched challenging the Home Office refusal decision, which resulted in permission being granted at the high court and a settlement offer being made by the Secretary of State. By consent order the Home Office agreed A would be given a right of appeal against the refusal.
Following a delay by the Home Office, our team once again challenged the Home Office to give effect to the settlement by consent which it had agreed or to face further litigation by way of a judicial review for undue delay. Further correspondence followed, and our client was then granted a right of appeal. By this time A’s wife had applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK which strengthened the appeal grounds and our immigration tribunal advocates were able successfully obtain the best result at appeal by winning A’s case on all the grounds of appeal put forward in his case.
Client A was a Pilipino national who had made an application as a Tier 1 entrepreneur through previous representatives. He had been refused a Tier 1 (entrepreneur) visa and instructed our firm to assist in challenging the refusal at the immigration Tribunal Appeal. Miss Teni Shahiean of OTS Solicitors assisted our client to prepare for the appeal. Prior to his appeal hearing Client A had been offered a job in the UK by an employer with the required Sponsorship Licence. We assisted our client to obtain a certificate of sponsorship in time from the employer and then withdrew the appeal and submitted a fresh Tier 2 (General) application meaning that they were still within the 28 day grace period allowed after their leave to remain expired. With the help of our immigration team Client A was granted his Tier 2 (General visa) straight away without the need to appeal his initial refusal. Our client achieved the best outcome in his immigration case and started his Employment thereafter successfully developing his career and life in the UK.
The client in this case was a Nigerian national who approached our firm after his previous applications for leave to remain on Article 8 grounds had been refused. The basis of his application, while resting on grounds of family and private life, was that the client feared persecution due to his sexual identity (Homosexual male) and feared that returning to Nigeria would mean persecution for him and his family members.
The Home Office had refused on the ground that our client didn’t have a partner or a child in the UK, therefore failing the requirements of family life and there were no exceptional circumstances for granting him leave outside of immigration rules. Prior to making this decision the Home Office had separately invited the client to personally apply for Asylum if he considered himself to be in danger of persecution upon return. Despite this, no consideration was given to his sexuality when making the decision, or the fact that he faced persecution upon return to his country.
Our immigration department was instructed to appeal against the Home Office decision. Our team of specialist immigration appeal lawyers worked closely with the client and our barristers to prepare the case to an exceptionally high standard. The best outcome was achieved in this case as the Appeal was allowed and the client was granted on Asylum grounds and Human Rights grounds under Article 3 freedom from torture and inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.
To arrive to such a decision the Judge had accepted our legal argument on immigration and Human Rights grounds and evidence put before him on behalf of our client. The Tribunal acknowledged that the reason for which our client wanted to remain in the UK stem from fear of returning to Nigeria as a gay man. The Tribunal also considered Paragraph 327, which does not require the appellant to make application for Asylum in person. This was an important point that allowed the Tribunal to hear the submissions on our client’s behalf on his refugee status, even though to formally claim for Asylum had been made prior to the hearing.
In order to proceed to hearing the submissions on our client’s refugee status, the Tribunal noted that the Home Office had no need to make any additional checks such as verifying additional facts or documents to be able to make a decision on an Asylum claim. Therefore, there was no reason for which the Home Office would have not been able to consider our client’s case from the prospect of United Kingdom’s obligation under Refugee or Person in need of International Protection Regulations 2006. The Tribunal further noted that the Home Office had already confirmed the UK as the responsible state for the Asylum claim.
The Definition of refugee according to Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention is:
Owning to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside his country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside of the country of his former habitual residence ...is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Therefore, proving of a well-founded fear of prosecution, as well as belonging to a particular social group is always essential to success in this branch of Asylum cases. In this case the Tribunal was satisfied that our client was a gay man, therefore belonging to a particular social group and that he had well-founded fear of persecution, based on the evidence of recent legislative changes in Nigeria, as well as arrests that have taken place in the country.
The Human Rights Article 3 provides that no-one shall be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In this case there was a clear and substantial risk for our client of being subject to such treatment and punishment as Nigerian law provides for prison sentence for same sex sexual acts and same sex marriages. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it was not possible to say that prosecution of gay men were rare in that country. This led to accepting that our client’s fear of return to the country was well-founded.
Furthermore, as our client had well-funded fear that his family could also suffer by association with him, the Tribunal granted him anonymity. This means that no report of the proceedings will directly or indirectly identify our client or members of his family. This is an important protection measure for many people fearing prosecution in their countries extending to their families, as well as being shunned by the community in the UK- fear, that keeps them from applying for Asylum on grounds of sexuality.
Thank you for your enquiry. Your father can make a fresh application, but he needs to deal with the previous refusals in the fresh application. Please contact our office to speak with one of our solicitors. Please kindly phone us on 02039599123 to book an appointment.
Thank you for your immigration enquiry. Please contact our office to speak to one of our lawyers on 02039599123. We look forward to hearing from you. It is important to reverse the ban, if not, he cannot enter the UK in the best 10 years. As there is no right of appeal, he cannot appeal.
Thank you for your enquiry. He may be refused entry, however, we will need the exact dates of the conviction to advise you on when it would be most appropriate for him to apply. Please contact us on 02039 599123 to discuss this further.
Thank you for your enquiry. We are happy to arrange a meeting to discuss this urgent matter with you. We suggest that you phone our office on 0203 959 9123 to book an initial meeting to discuss your matter.
In order to provide you with solid advice that you can rely on we would need more information about your partner’s background such as their nationality, their risk on return, the length of your relationship etc. Given that she also had TOEIC related issues, we cannot give you a definitive answer we would need to understand her case and immigration history better. We suggest that you contact us on 02039 599123 to book a consultation with one of our team who can provide you with advice tailored to your circumstances.
Thank you for getting in touch with us.
Your enquiry is being reviewed by our team and one of our solicitors will contact you shortly.
In the meantime, you can also call us on 02039599123 or email us on info@otssolicitors.co.uk
Thank you for getting in touch with us.
Your enquiry is being reviewed by our team and one of our solicitors will contact you shortly.
In the meantime, you can also call us on 02039599123 or email us on info@otssolicitors.co.uk
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for your question.
We would be happy to assist you, but it is important for us to understand your situation in full detail and to have full instructions from you. We understand that you had an immigration appeal and at the hearing, the Judge directed the Home Office to reconsider their decision within 28 days. To date, you have not received a response from the Home Office.
Our Solicitors will contact you shortly.
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for your question.
We would be happy to assist you, but it is important for us to understand your situation in full detail and to have full instructions from you. We understand that you had an immigration appeal and at the hearing, the Judge directed the Home Office to reconsider their decision within 28 days. To date, you have not received a response from the Home Office.
Our Solicitors will contact you shortly.
Dear Madam,
Many thanks for your question.
We will require further information from you in order to advise you on your immigration matter. Our solicitors will contact you shortly.
Thank you OTS for providing amazing service and professional advice. Your professionalism, caring attitude towards clients and honest practices are some of the traits which make you an outstanding law firm. We are especially grateful to Hans, who dealt with our case deligently, successfully and gave us confidence in the most stressful moments after our previous solicitor's firm (Malik Law Chambers) was shut down by SRA.
Anyone, who is in need of reliable immigration advice should contact OTS solicitors with confidence. After personally experiencing their services, I would highly recommend this law firm.
OTS thank you so so much for your professional job you put effort to my case especial Hans Sok Appadu he was a mazing I don't khow how I can say thank you an amazing solicitor I found through to barrister Mark Symes it was early july 2016 I call them they did made an appointment for me went there and keep in touch all the time tell you what is going on best immigration solicitor any one who need immigration solicitors I can tell you OTS solicitors are the best all Zimbabwean if (OFUNA UMELI )OTS thanks to Hans sok appadu he is my hero 2016 meet OTS 2017 got my papers well all ots solicitors
I have been referred by one of my friends to OTS Solicitors. I had my first consultation with Oshin Shahiean who brilliantly explained to me my situation and what can be done in my case. Oshin told me that OTS Solicitors will make sure that I win the case as long as I can show and provide all the necessary information that they needed. His advice on our first meeting gave me confidence to use their services.
I have been with a previous solicitor and I was not happy with the way my case was being dealt. Thus I change to OTS Solicitors. I have been struggling for the last 10 years, trying to sort my status and spent a huge amount of money in the past with solicitors.
Maryem Ahmed who was working on my case gave me the best news today when she told me that I was granted refugee status. This is the best news I have received considering my struggles and fears. Maryem has been very good to me- she has been helping me to understand the process, she is very friendly and always accessible and always updating me on my case.
I would like to thank Maryem and OTS Solicitors for all the hard work and help they have given me.
Amazing team and great service. Highly recommended!
Teni and the rest of the team are very helpful and reliable. The assistance of this firm is 5 star, wherein every bit of concern and details are well taken cared of. Nothing is taken for granted and nothing is ignored. All professional and with excellent knowledge about immigration. Everyone who spoke with us were very patient, helpful and calm. They make us feel that everything will be alright. It was all worth it!
We would highly recommend this firm!
My personal experience with OTS Solicitors is outstanding and exceptional. They are brilliant, efficient and very much friendly. They are helpful and professional. I am impressed of all the work they have done for me and I will highly recommend who has made me feel free from my immigration mater.
Thank you so much to specially Mr Hans and Mr Oshin at OTS solicitors who helped me lots for my further submission. And also thanks who has recommended me to go at OTS solicitors.
OTS Solicitors conducted my case with great care and professionalism. I can refer them without any hesitation when it comes immigration matter.
Thanks to you and your team my husband and I can continue living our lives together in the UK and developing our family life. Our worst day was receiving the refusal of my visa application, but thanks to Teni we were given a second chance and the immigration judge believed us. Thank you for all your hard work, we are forever grateful.
