Real case study for family visitor visa UK

Realcase studies about family visitor visa to UK

The applicant: an Indian national residing in Kenya applied to visit her sister-in-law in the UK for one month;  stated that she was a dependant of her husband, a Kenyan national, who had submitted a similar application at the same time; provided a range of supporting evidence to demonstrate financial and personal circumstances in Kenya, and a letter of invitation with supporting evidence from their UK sponsor;  was refused entry clearance, because of a lack of evidence of her financial circumstances and immigration status in Kenya.

VERITAS found that ECO had failed to consider all the positive evidence submitted by the applicant in support of their application

• A good customer service that a fee-paying applicant should reasonably expect to receive but embassy fail. 

• The applicant was dependent on her spouse, who was also applying for entry clearance at the same time. 

• The same evidence submitted for both applications satisfied the entry clearance officer of the husband’s financial circumstances, but was not considered satisfactory for the applicant. 

• It was Straightforward enquiries , either by telephone or email given in application form could have been made to clarify the applicant’s current immigration status.

Result : 

• Immigration authorities later agreed that positive financial evidence had been disregarded, and the applicant’s financial circumstances should have been considered in line with her spouse;

• Further  accepted that the ECO should have deferred the application, as set out in guidance, to give the applicant an opportunity to provide evidence establishing her immigration status;

• Confirmed that the applicant had been issued with a visa on re-application great victory !!!

Can I work while my visa application is being considered?

If you have a visa which is about to expire, and submit a new application inside the UK before this visa expires, Section 3C leave (of the Immigration Act 1971) “extends” your previous visa for as long as it takes to make a decision.It does not matter if your visa expires and you have not heard from the Home Office (UK Visas and Immigration) – because you applied on time. In this case your status remains the same as before, with the same conditions, including the rights to work. 

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 is an important provision for any migrant in the UK. This section allows a person who has submitted an in-time application to extend their stay in the UK (i.e. if they submit their application before their leave expires) not to become an overstayer while their application remains outstanding. This means that if an individual submits an application when they have leave to remain, and the Home Office do not make a decision on that application until after their leave would have expired, their leave is  automatically extended with the same conditions. This means that people do not become temporary overstayers while their applications are outstanding and they do not lose their right to work (if they previously had one). Periods of time spent with leave extended by s3C also count towards continuous long residence for the purpose of settlement. 

However, depending on what happens after the application is submitted, it can be complicated to work out the date on which someone’s leave actually ends. This has been further complicated by changes brought in by the Immigration Act 2014. This can be important for someone who has been unsuccessful in their application and they want to submit a fresh application within 28 days of becoming an over-stayer or someone who wants to leave the UK within 90 days of becoming an over-stayer to avoid a ban from the UK.

non european immigrants remove on the theory of ‘deport first, appeal later’ measures start to have an impact

Powers introduced in the government’s flagship Immigration Act are cracking down on the appeals conveyor belt used by criminals to delay their removal from the UK. And more than 300 have already been removed – with nearly 500 more currently going through the system.

Non-suspensive appeals came into force in July, meaning Home Office officials can deport criminals before they have the opportunity to launch spurious claims under the Human Rights Act or falsely claim asylum.

Those deported then have the right to launch an appeal from their own country, rather than clogging the British justice system – costing UK taxpayers time and money in fighting the cases through the courts.

And the new powers have seen a number of criminals deported despite having family members in the UK – reinforcing the government’s stance that the right to a family life should not override the rights of wider society.

Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire said:

Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in Britain should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them.

The countless appeals and re-appeals lodged by criminals attempting to cheat the system cost us all money and are an affront to British justice.

Non-suspensive appeals are allowing us to kick out foreign criminals more quickly and more efficiently than ever before and I want to see them used as often as possible.

Alongside tougher crime fighting measures, improved protection at the border and greater collaboration between police and immigration enforcement officers, the Immigration Act will help us deliver an immigration system that is fair to the people of this country and legitimate immigrants and tough on those who flout the rules.

The Act has also slashed the number of appeals available to foreign criminals from 17 to just four. And they have been denied the right to appeal against deportation simply because they do not agree with our decision.

Under the new rules, once a decision has been taken to deport a foreign criminal they will have to lodge any appeal and all papers their lawyers think are relevant to their attempts to stay from outside the country. This is putting a stop to delaying tactics often employed by criminals desperate to thwart justice. Previously, it was commonplace for criminals to submit to the court reams of new, unconsidered ‘evidence’ creating legal delays while government lawyers studied the new paperwork.

The non-suspensive appeals measures will work alongside other powers in the Immigration Act to speed up the justice system and make it more efficient.

Note:

The figures in this article are taken from internal management information compiled by Home Office officials (between 28 July 2014, when the first Immigration Act Commencement Order was laid and when the amendments to the EEA Regulations came into effect, and 17 December 2014). They are provisional and so subject to revision.

All of these cases in this article are associated with non-suspensive appeals for deportees. These are contained in Section 17(1) and 17(3) of the Immigration Act 2014 (certification of human rights claims made by persons liable to deportation) and, in respect of EEA nationals, in Regulations 24AA and 29(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (human rights considerations and interim orders to suspend removal, and effect of appeals). Regulation 29(3) provides that an appeal against a deportation decision no longer automatically suspends removal proceedings.

Real Case Study :- Business Visa Refusal later overturned by Home office

Real Case Studies :

The applicant was refused entry clearance who had applied to enter the UK as a business visitor; had been issued, and complied with the conditions of, a business visit visa on two previous occasions, and had travelled extensively to other European countries; submitted a range of supporting evidence, which included documents relating to his transport business along with a letter of invitation from a UK-based business selling shoes and clothing BUT The ECO was not satisfied that he had provided evidence that his business was functioning satisfactorily, the nature of his business was compatible with that of the company he intended to visit in the UK.

VERITAS  ADMITTED :

The applicant had previously been issued with a business visa on the basis of his existing business, and the applicant’s travel history indicated that he had complied with the conditions of the visa by leaving the UK. This positive evidence was not taken into account by the ECO during the decision-making process, nor was it referred to in the refusal notice

We do not agree that the applicant’s business can be considered to be incompatible with that of his UK sponsor’s business. We consider that the decision was flawed.

RESULT:

After writing to HIGH COMMISSION: The Home Office  agreed with comments and arguments assessment and stated ‘The extensive travel history to UK and Europe outweighed the ECO’s concerns and on balance this application should have been issued’. agreed to overturn the decision and contact the applicant to offer to issue the visa.