Client Case Studies & Testimonials

We were instructed by a Nigerian national and a Tier 1 entrepreneur. At the ILR stage, it became apparent that the applicant’s husband had far exceeded the number of days permitted under the rules in order to settle. This created a number of problems, the biggest of which was that their children could not settle either and they had reached an age where they would soon be leading independent lives, which meant they would not have had any other avenues of remaining in the UK.

We advised to submit the application for ILR for the entire family, arguing that:

• When the partner first entered the route, there was no requirement to spend a certain number of days in the UK.
• The family had made plans for the following 5 years, whereby the partner would keep working in Nigeria in order to provide funding for the UK company
• Even though the rules changed, this was halfway through the qualifying period and it was unreasonable to expect the partner, who had a very high income, to be able to find a similar job in the UK. This would also have affected the main applicant’s ability to meet her own requirements as an entrepreneur
• It would have been disproportionate to exclude the children from a grant of ILR (since they had not travelled at all) just because the rules require both parents to qualify for ILR

Evidence was provided to the effect that the partner’s absences were exclusively due to work reasons -

The home office asked for a reassurance that it was the partner’s intention to settle in the UK, which was provided. The Home Office acknowledged the need for the partner to be granted ILR with reference to the children being able to gain settlement. Therefore, the entire family was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.

We were instructed by a Tier 1 Entrepreneur whose extension of leave to remain as a Tier 1 migrant had been refused by the home office 3 times. The entrepreneur came to Westkin after the 3rd refusal. Her previous representatives had incorrectly advised that there was no limit to the number of in country “re-applications” could be made so long as it was within 14 days of the previous refusal.

The applicant had no legal basis for a re-application or any avenue for a different application. We were also mindful of trying anything that would not interrupt the continuity of her leave under Section 3(c) of the Immigration Act

We therefore advised to lodge a Judicial Review out of time against the 2nd refusal, as opposed to the 3rd, which would have led to the 3rd application (the one she was not entitled to) effectively being irrelevant (the one where there was no section 3c related tolerance)

A pre-action protocol was lodged however the home office did not agree to reconsider. We proceeded with a Judicial Review and GLD settled the matter offering to withdraw the refusal of the 2nd application in order to re-consider the same.

A consent order was signed, the Home Office was given additional evidence and the application succeeded. By that point, the applicant already qualified for ILR on the basis of having spent 5 years on the route. An application for ILR was made and it was argued that by signing the consent order and subsequently granting leave, they acknowledged they had erred in refusing the earlier application, and that although section 3c leave cannot technically be revived, they ought to grant ILR as if continuity of leave had not been broken, because it had only happened following a mistake on the home office part. The applicant was granted ILR and is now a British citizen.

We were instructed on a highly complex deportation, asylum and human rights case. The client is an Eritrean national who claimed asylum. He was granted ELR, and, eventually, granted ILR. He suffers with PTSD and became a heroin addict. He then committed numerous small crimes, amassing over 50 convictions, prompting a deportation decision in 2007. We were instructed in FTT appeal, which was dismissed. We then submitted an application to revoke the deportation order on asylum and human rights grounds, which was ultimately rejected. We appealed to the FTT, and the appeal was dismissed on asylum grounds, and allowed on article 8 grounds. The Home Office appealed and the FTT appeal was set aside by the UT and then remitted back to the FTT.

We argued that the client’s heroin addiction and the requirement for compulsory military service in Eritrea meant that this client would suffer unduly harsh treatment such that this article 8 rights would be disproportionately interfered with. The client has continued to commit crimes throughout the appeal process, and so the public interest in deportation was deemed extremely high. The judge allowed the appeal, on the basis of the compelling medical and expert evidence provided. The Home Office did not challenge the judgment and the client was granted discretionary leave to remain.  We have since made one successful extension of leave application, and processed the second application, following 5 years since the appeal was allowed.

We were instructed by a lesbian from Jordan to represent her on her asylum claim based on her sexuality, who was in the UK on a student visa at the time.

We assisted our client, retaining her right to work during her pending claim.  Furthermore, despite Home Office country guidance not addressing the risk of persecution faced by a lesbian woman in Jordan, we submitted complex legal representations and comprehensive documentation, including court decisions from other jurisdictions, to support our client’s real risk of harm on return.

Our client was granted refugee status subsequent to her substantive interview, without requiring an appeal.