Immigration Case - UB & Minor

UB, an Indian national, came to Sultan Lloyd Solicitors for help with her application to join her father, LB, in the UK.  He had been resident in the UK since 1995 due to his Portuguese nationality.  UB had a young daughter and had suffered a marriage breakdown, so wished to come to the UK to be with her family, but her application had been refused.  She had not been sho wn to meet the necessary requirements for immigration.

However, due to Sultan Lloyd Solicitors’ experience and expertise in this area of law, we were able to identify the key issue that would reverse the decision in UB’s favour: UB and her daughter should be entitled to follow LB here under European Law if she satisfied the relevant definition of “family member”.  As UB was an adult it was necessary to show that she was dependent on LB.  Indeed, we were able to gather and present basic but crucial evidence of UB’s dependence. She lived in a house owned by LB, he regularly sent her money for bills, daily expenses and clothes and she had no other income.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that UB did have rights under the relevant European Law, and that she and her daughter should be allowed to come to the UK.

If you need to know more about how we can help you with your Immigration needs, please call us now or fill in the enquiry form.

<< Back

Dependency Immigration - OQ (India) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An immigration judge had made no error of law when ruling that three sisters from India, who were all over 18 years old, should be allowed entry clearance to join their mother in the United Kingdom on the basis of family ties. The appellants (O) appealed against a decision of a senior immigration judge allowing an appeal by the respondent secretary of state against a decision of an immigration judge granting O entry into the United Kingdom. O were three sisters of Indian nationality.

Their mother was a British overseas citizen. Following the introduction of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, M was issued a British passport. O subsequently sought entry clearance from India which was refused on the basis that O did not fall within the Immigration Rules para.317 as they were over 18 years old and could not demonstrate that they were wholly or mainly dependent on their mother. An immigration judge allowed O's appeal under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8. On a reconsideration the senior immigration judge ruled that the immigration judge had made a material error of law and had misunderstood and misapplied Entry Clearance Officer v NH (India) (2007) EWCA Civ 1330, (2008) INLR 154.

The secretary of state conceded that the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted. O contended that the immigration judge made no error of law and that therefore the senior immigration judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. O further submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the immigration judge should stand without remitting the matter .HELD: The immigration judge's conclusion in relation to the nature of the family ties between O and their mother was not flawed by any error of law. The immigration judge had given a reasoned basis for his decision and had made no error in his reference to NH, NH considered. As there was no error of law there was no reason to remit the case. Appeal allowed solicitors: For the appellant: Sultan Lloyd For the respondent: Treasury Solicit

Judgment: November 25, 2009

<< Back

SM (India) V Same

Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Etherton and Lord Justice Sullivan

Where a person sought a right of entry and residence as a dependant of a European Union citizen, it was not a requirement to ask whether the claimed dependency arose from a need for the support of such a citizen.

The Court of Appeal so stated, inter alia, when allowing the appeals of:

(i) OQ and NQ from the dismissal by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on June 18, 2008, of their appeals against the refusal by an immigration judge of their appeal against an entry clearance officer’s refusal to issue EEA Family Permits; and (ii) SM from the dismissal by the same tribunal on July 23, 2007, of his appeal against a similar refusal.

The claimants, who came from India and had relatives who were EU nationals, sought entry to the United Kingdom in reliance, inter alia, upon Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (OJ April 30, 2004 L158/77), the Citizens’ Directive, article 3(2) of which provided for states to facilitate entry and residence for “any other family members ... who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants of members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence...”

Mr Nazir Ahmed for OQ and NQ; Mr Zainul Jafferji for SM; Mr Robert Palmer for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN said that the Home Secretary had rightly conceded that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had erred in finding, in reliance upon its decision in AP(India) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2007] UKIAT 48) of June 13, 2007, that the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Jia v Migrationsverke (Case C-1/05) ([2007] QB 545) had cast doubt on its earlier decision in Centre public d’aide sociale de Courcelles v Lebon (Case 316/85) ([1987] ECR 2811), so that regard was now to be had to “need”.   There was nothing in the Jia case to suggest that the court was departing from the proposition in the Lebon case that, for the Citizens’ Directive at least, the test being different under certain applicable rules, the status of a dependent member of a worker’s family was the result of a factual situation, namely the provision of support by the worker, without there being any need to determine the reasons for recourse to the worker’s support.

It followed that the decision in AP (India) should not be followed in so far as it suggested a different notion of dependence from the Lebon test.

The cases were remitted to the tribunal.

Source: Timesonline, published on 7th December, 2009.

<< Back

RO (India) Vs Entry Clearance Officer (2008)

An immigration judge had made no error of law when ruling that three sisters from India, who were all over 18 years old, should be allowed entry clearance to join their mother in the United Kingdom on the basis of family ties.

The appellants (O) appealed against a decision of a senior immigration judge allowing an appeal by the respondent secretary of state against a decision of an immigration judge granting O entry into the United Kingdom. O were three sisters of Indian nationality. Their mother was a British overseas citizen. Following the introduction of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, M was issued a British passport. O subsequently sought entry clearance from India which was refused on the basis that O did not fall within the Immigration Rules para.317 as they were over 18 years old and could not demonstrate that they were wholly or mainly dependent on their mother. An immigration judge allowed O's appeal under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8. On a reconsideration the senior immigration judge ruled that the immigration judge had made a material error of law and had misunderstood and misapplied Entry Clearance Officer v NH (India) (2007) EWCA Civ 1330, (2008) INLR 154. The secretary of state conceded that the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted. O contended that the immigration judge made no error of law and that therefore the senior immigration judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. O further submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the immigration judge should stand without remitting the matter.

HELD: The immigration judge's conclusion in relation to the nature of the family ties between O and their mother was not flawed by any error of law. The immigration judge had given a reasoned basis for his decision and had made no error in his reference to NH, NH considered. As there was no error of law there was no reason to remit the case.

Appeal allowed.

Solicitors:

For the appellant: Sultan Lloyd

For the respondent: Treasury Solicitor

<< Back

Asylum Case - TM >

TM, a citizen of Zimbabwe, came to Sultan Lloyd Solicitors in April 2009 having been refused asylum by the UK Home Office.  He had entered the UK as a student with a 15 month visa and claimed asylum on the basis that he feared persecution by the Zanu PF on return to Zimbabwe due to his opposing political opinion and activities.

Originally the Home Office had not found that TM had a sufficient political profile such as to be singled out by the Zanu PF, and therefore refused asylum.  When TM brought his case to Sultan Lloyd Solicitors, due to our specialist knowledge of the relevant law and the circumstances surrounding cases such as these, we were able to build a successful appeal against this refusal.  We identified and put forward various flaws in the Home Office’s argument and we highlighted evidence and important, previously unconsidered, factors supporting TM’s claim.

Our high level of commitment for excellence enabled us to demonstrate that TM would have been at real risk of persecution if he was forced to return to Zimbabwe, so he was consequently granted asylum in the UK.

If you need to know more about how we can help you with your Asylum needs, please call us now or fill in the enquiry form.

<< Back

Asylum case – TH

BS v SSHD (Religious Persecution in Punjab, India)

BS, an Indian national from the State of Punjab arrived in the United Kingdom to claim asylum in mid 2009.  He entered the United Kingdom on a visitor’s visa with his family.  He subsequently sought advice from Sultan Lloyd Solicitors in relation to making an application for asylum on the basis of his fear of persecution from a quasi religious/political organisation in India known as the Dera Sacha Sauda.   BS was referred to us because of our specialist knowledge of the law and understanding of the particular issues raised by his own circumstances in India.  We advised him on the procedures of the asylum process and prepared a detailed statement of the basis of his claim for asylum.

The Home Office initially refused BS’s asylum application on the discrete basis that he could internally relocate to another state in India to avoid persecution from the Dera Sacha Sauda followers.  Furthermore the Home Office suggested that the Indian authorities could provide BS with sufficient level of protection against his persecutors.  We assisted BS on lodging an appeal against the decision.

BS’s credibility had been generally accepted by the Home Office but the appeal required careful and strategic preparation on the issues of refusal, supported by documentary evidence.

BS’s appeal was allowed and it was found that the evidence relied upon by Sultan Lloyd Solicitors demonstrated that BS could not relocate to another part of India and that there was not sufficient protection available to him against his persecutors.  The Home Office’s attempts to apply for reconsideration of these findings were unsuccessful and BS’s appeal was upheld on asylum grounds.

BS and his young family can now remain safely in the United Kingdom as refugees.

<< Back

QN v SSHD (Pakistani Female Victim of Domestic Violence)

QN is a Pakistani female who approached Sultan Lloyd Solicitors in 2008.  She had claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on the basis that she feared persecution from her husband in Pakistan, who had subjected her to severe domestic violence.  QN was in a particularly vulnerable position, having been abandoned by her family and shunned by her community.  QN’s history of immigration in the United Kingdom was complex and lengthy but we were able to assist her in preparing a detailed statement of claim to present to the Home Office and advise her about obtaining documents to support her claim.

Unfortunately, the Home Office initially refused QN’s application by we assisted her in appealing against the decision and present her case before an Independent Immigration Judge. In refusing QN’s asylum application the Home Office relied upon objective information, which suggested that the authorities and Non-Governmental Organisations in Pakistan are able to provide sufficient protection and assistance to victims of domestic violence.

Our highly experienced solicitors were able to successfully challenge the decision by thoroughly and expertly preparing QN’s case for hearing.  We employed expert and medical evidence to establish our client’s credibility, counter the Home Office information and confirm our client’s well founded fears of on going persecution in Pakistan, the lack of protection available to her as a separated woman and her inability to relocate to a place of safety.

QN is now able to remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee.

<< Back

Family Law (Divorce) case

ZH came to Sultan Lloyd Solicitors needing assistance with his divorce. He was married in 2004 and had since experienced many problems with his wife. He had difficulties with conception, and once this became clear she was abusive and would tell him that she wanted him to move out of the property. This together with health problems led to ZH suffering from low self-esteem and becoming depressed. The relationship deteriorated to the stage where ZH and his wife were leading separate lives but forced to stay in the same house due to financial issues.

Therefore, ZH came to us for advice on divorce proceedings. Having a great deal of experience in this area we were able to advise him and provide specific, tailored guidance based on his individual circumstances. We strive to achieve the best results for our clients and recommended that he should file for divorce on the grounds of the unreasonable behaviour of his wife.

Sultan Lloyd Solicitors carried out all the necessary paperwork effectively and efficiently on ZH’s behalf. We successfully presented his case to the Court, and the Judge found that indeed ZH’s wife had acted unreasonably, that the marriage had broken down and the divorce was granted.

If you need to know more about how we can help you with your Family Law needs, please call us now or fill in the enquiry form.

<< Back