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.

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.