Recommended by Legal500
Judicial Review and Human Rights
At OTS solicitors we regularly act for individuals, companies, charities and other non-profit organisations to challenge the decisions of a public body in cases where such decisions are made with disregard of the law, human rights or failure to observe procedural rules.
Every public body is under duty to observe the law and human rights whenever making a decision, as well as follow certain procedural rules for it. A failure to do so will result in an unlawful decision which can be challenged before court. This procedure is known as Judicial Review and is widely used in areas where the governmental bodies have decisional powers. Both, the decisions of central and local public bodies can be challenged using the Judicial Review procedure.
Our specialist Judicial Review and human rights solicitors have an extensive knowledge and experience in challenging decisions of public bodies. We are especially dedicated to human rights aspect of the law.
OTS Solicitor team has successfully defended numerous Judicial Review applications, specialising in particular in immigration cases. In this area of law we have a wide-ranging history of successfully acting for clients in refusal of further leave to remain, refusal of Asylum claims, removal from the UK or detention cases. Our Judicial Review and human rights team has rich experience of acting in various cases and at different levels of courts, including the Court of Appeal. Our solicitors have been involved in cases that have challenged the existing approach to legal problems and helped further shape the legal framework.
Our Judicial Review and human rights solicitors are not only experts in local law, but in EU law and relevant international treaties. Our advice is built on solid knowledge of UK case law, as well as European Court of Justice and European Court of human rights case law.
Some of the other areas where Judicial Review is widely used by our clients are:
- planning and environment
- health
- community care
- housing
- education
- Licensing
- Civil liberties
Our expert Judicial Review and human rights solicitors are recognised in legal directories and by their peers as leading specialists in the area. As in all other areas, our Judicial Review team is made of dedicated, friendly, approachable professionals, determined to battle relentlessly and against all odds in order to assure equity and justice to our clients.
For detailed and tailored advice on your individual circumstances, please contact the OTS Solicitors business immigration department 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 Litigation, courts and Tribunals team, please call us now on 0203 959 9123
Judicial Review and Human Rights Success Stories
Miss J, a Slovakian national, allegedly entered into a marriage of convenience. The arrangement was supposedly discovered by the Home Office following a rade. The Home Office attempted to remove her from the UK.
What is a Marriage of Convenience?
A marriage of convenience or a ‘sham marriage’ describes a marriage or civil partnership entered into for immigration advantage by two people who are not a genuine couple. Non-EEA nationals sometimes enter into these arrangements in order to stay in the UK.
How we Helped
We investigated the matter through numerous enquiries and freedom of infomration disclosure by the Home Office. Following out legal representation at Appeal in the immigration Tribunal Miss J was successfully allowed to remain in the UK and the decision to remove Miss J from the UK was quashed.
This work was carried out by Principal Solicitor Teni Shahiean and Senior Caseworker Nataliya Bondarets.
To find out how we can help you achieve the best outcome in your immigration appeal matter, please phone our London office on 0207 936 9960, to talk to one of our immigration lawyers..
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.
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.
Your Questions & Our Answers about Judicial Review and Human Rights
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your question.
Your case raises certain complex matters which our specialist immigration solicitors, who are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority would be confident to advise you on. We would be able to offer you assistance as part of a one-off consultation or otherwise as part of our full representation service. Your query relating to your leave to remain in the UK, and residence requirements in the UK has been forwarded to the relevant department and our immigration lawyers will be in touch with you within 24 hours to explain how to proceed for the best outcome in your immigration case.
Kind regards
OTS Solicitors
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your question. We set out some information below which may assist you in applying under this visa route.
Individuals living in the UK for twenty years or more (either lawfully or unlawfully), can apply for Leave to Remain on the grounds of private life. After a further ten years residency, he or she can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
The most important distinction between the 20 year route and the 10 year route is that you can apply for Leave to Remain after 20 years even if you have been in the UK illegally.
Eligibility
The law relating to the 20 years long residence route for Indefinite Leave to Remain is contained in paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules. Prior to this paragraph coming into force in 2012, applicants could apply for Leave to Remain after 14 years.
The applicant must meet one of the requirements contained in paragraph 276ADE (iii) to (vi), which state that the applicant;
- i. Has lived continuously in the UK for at least 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment)
- ii. Is under the age of 18 years and has lived continuously in the UK for at least seven years (discounting any period of imprisonment)
- iii. Is aged 18 years or above and under 25 years and has spent at least half of their life residing continuously in the UK (discounting any period of imprisonment)
- iv. Is aged 18 years and above, has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) but has no ties (including social, cultural or family) with the country to which they would have to go if required to leave the UK.
The Definition of ‘Ties’
When establishing whether or not an applicant has any ties with the country he or she would have to return to if they left the UK, the UK Border Agency will consider factors such as language, whether the applicant has any family and/or friends in that country, cultural ties etc.
How OTS Solicitors Can Help You With Your Application
Our experienced and highly-qualified solicitors will take the time needed to put together a comprehensive application for Leave to Remain under the 20 year route. You can be assured we will take an approach to your case to ensure it has the best chance of succeeding. We can also answer any questions the Home Office may have regarding your application on your behalf.
When you engage our services you can expect the following standard of service:
- Based on the information you provide us, detailed advice as to the UK immigrationlaws that apply to your case
- A clear, concise discussion with an your solicitor, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of your application
- Advice as to what documentation you will need to provide to support your application
- Assistance with filling in the relevant application forms
- Full follow-up with the UK Border Agency if there are any questions or problems with your application
- Advice on appeals or applications for administrative or judicial review should you application be denied
- Your Immigration solicitor will prepare strong detailed legal representations setting out the legal framework to support your application
OTS Solicitors is registered with and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Our Fees
We can offer a fixed fee service for an Indefinite Leave to Remain Application for 20 years’ residence in some circumstances. We can also offer payment options if required.
To find out more on how we can advise you on your application for IndefiniteLeave to Remain after a twenty year residence in the UK, please phone our office on 
0207 936 9960. We would be happy to offer an initial consultation over the phone, or you can make an appointment to see us in our London office.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your question.
We note that the Treasury Solicitors acting for the Secretary of State for the Home Department are offering to reconsider your application on the condition that you withdraw your Judicial Review claim against the Secretary of State.
At OTS Solicitors our Judicial Review team are made up of specialist immigration lawyers that will successfully negotiate the best terms of your Consent Order on your behalf.
In answer to your question, you must consider the possibility that the Secretary of State may refuse your application against following their reconsideration of your case. Have you asked for a right of appeal if they do refuse your case again? You must also consider that the Secretary of State will take a long time to reconsider the application. Have you therefore provided a defined time-scale in which the Secretary of State must reconsider your case? You must also consider that the Secretary of State may be liable to pay your costs for the Judicial Review claim. Have you therefore included provisions for claiming back these costs from the Secretary of State/Home Office? Without consideration of the above, you may therefore have no further opportunity to ask the Court for relief in this case and you may be reliant on the Secretary of State to act on their promises within the consent order. It is therefore imperative that you / your solicitor carefully and strategically word the Consent Order to protect your legal interest.
If you are still unsure of your next steps or what the correct decision would be in your case, our specialist Judicial Review immigration lawyers base in London are ready to take you through these final important steps in your Judicial Review matter. To ensure that you are strongly represented to settle your case on best possible terms, call our solicitors today to arrange a details consultation. You can reach us on 0207 936 9960 or by completing our Contact From.
Kind regards,
Judicial Review immigration Team
OTS Solicitors
Anyone detained under immigration powers has the right to apply for bail. As a first step a Temporary Admission request to the Home Office should be made, as a Chief immigration Officer of the Home Office does have the power to release a detainee. If this is refused then a bail application will follow. This is done on a specific form B1 that can be obtained online, or if you are in detention from the staff.
A completed form should be sent to the relevant court attaching grounds for bail and supporting evidence. Within three working days you most probably will receive a hearing date.
To better your prospects of success, your application for bail will need to provide a fixed address to reside in and one/two people to act as sureties. These are people who will keep in touch with you and undertake to ensure that you do not break any conditions of release. They will also need to show a certain amount of money by way of covering for potential absconding. While these are not mandatory requirements by law, lack of an address or a surety will significantly weaken chances of success.
Please note, this is not a legal advice. Should you need a legal advice tailored to your circumstances please contact us to speak to one of our immigration solicitors.
