Professional, Expert and Affordable Immigration Advice

Background:
Ms D contacted Daria with regards to a close family member residing in India, Mr N. Mr N resided in India and suffered from a debilitating medical condition. He was previously residing with and was being looked after by his father, however, he has now passed away. Mr N’s mother resides in the UK and although she provides her son with financial support and visits him frequently, she is concerned about her son’s well-being. Mr N had already applied to relocate to the UK on two occasions and has had one unsuccessful appeal against the UKVI’s first refusal. The family have just found out that Mr N’s second application was also refused on several grounds, as the UKVI challenged the dependency, the relationship between Mr N and his mother, as well as her own financial circumstances. Ms D sought Daria’s advice on chances of a successful appeal against the second refusal of the UKVI and instructed Daria’s services in preparation for the case to be heard by a judge.

Action:
Daria worked closely with Ms D and prepared an extensively researched and cohesive portfolio for the submission to the UK First Tier Tribunal in support of the client’s appeal against the refusal of his application to relocate to the UK. Daria secured an experienced barrister to represent the client against the UKVI in the First Tier Immigration Tribunal. After hearing both sides in Court, the First Tribunal Judge overturned the decision of the UKVI to refuse the client’s application. Mr N has now successfully relocated to the UK and is residing with his loving and caring family.

Background:
Mrs C was residing in the UK as the Turkish Business Person Visa holder with her two young daughters. Her visa was coming up for the extension, however, Mrs was worried about her chances of securing an extension. She also was concerned about the lengthy processing times for the application review (up to 6 months), due to compassionate circumstances – she required to urgently accompany one of her children for medical treatment abroad.

Action:
Daria worked closely with the client’s family to build strong business and personal application portfolios for submission to the UKVI on behalf of the family and secured their successful extension of leave in record time – less than 5 days, ensuring Mrs C could travel urgently with her family for medical purposes and did could continue developing her business in the UK upon their return.

Background:
Mr A is an Iranian national who was studying in the UK as a Student Visa Holder. He applied for a Tier 1 Entrepreneur visa in early 2019 to set up a fast-growing servicing business in the UK with his father, a pioneer in the industry residing in Iran. The applicants successfully secured venture capital funding in the UK for their proposed business launch, however, the application was refused by UKVI on the grounds of funding, hiring plan and competitiveness of the business model in the UK primarily on the basis of the interviews UKVI conducted with both applicants. Mr A was advised by his legal representative to initiate a lengthy and costly judicial review process with no guarantees of success, as he was unable to resubmit a new application to UKVI due to the closure of this visa route for new applicants in April 2019. Mr A, therefore, decided to seek a second opinion on the application refusal and possible solutions and was referred for a consultation with Daria.

Action:
Daria reviewed Mr A’s original application documents, including the business plan as well as the notice of refusal issued by the UKVI and their interview records. A number of inconsistencies and failure points were identified in the UKVI’s review and analysis of Mr A’s application and the applicant was advised to urgently proceed with the submission of the administrative review request with detailed grounds. The submission was prepared and made directly to the UKVI on behalf of the client and within 28 days the UKVI withdrew their decision to refuse Mr A and his father’s applications.

Background:
Mr. K had been refused 3 consecutive times for a visit visa to the UK before approaching UKIVC for legal advice and assistance. It became apparent that each of his refusals carried a similar theme; a)not being able to convince the decision maker that he would return to his country at the end of his visit, b) not being able to adequately evidence that he had significant ties to his country of residence and c) the decision maker was not satisfied that he could demonstrate having sufficient funds for the duration of his visit. Mr. K is a well travelled person with an unblemished immigration history having travelled to many countries including USA, Australia and Canada, all of which have stringent criteria for entrance as a visitor.

Action:
We prepared a solid, watertight application evidencing family ties to his country (which included proof of residence of close family members and letters of support), a letter from his employer, contract of employment, explanations and evidence of the source of funds deposited to his account and evidence of an unblemished previous immigration history. The application was submitted with comprehensive legal representations and approved a few weeks later.

Background
Mr. J initially entered the UK as a 14 year old minor with the intention to stay for just a few months. Due to family circumstances in is home country, it was decided that he remain for longer than expected. This ultimately led to Mr. J remaining in the UK for more than 10 years with no valid leave to remain. He had no passport, and no other form of identity. He completed secondary education but was unemployable being unable to evidence lawful residence. Mr. J was in a relationship with a British national with whom he had a daughter. Mr. J approached UKIVC for advice to regularise his status.

Action:
The basis of this case was the fact that Mr. J had a child born in the UK whose mother was British by birth and by virtue, so was the child. Even though Mr. J at that time was unmarried and not living with his partner, the only route open to him was to apply under the Partner Route of Appendix FM (as the definition of “partner” rendered him not eligible under the Parent Route). There were a number of obstacles to overcome, the two main ones being no credible identification papers of Mr. J and evidence of parentage to his child. Whilst there is provision under the Immigration Rules for persons who cannot produce any form of identification it must be shown that effort has been made to request copies. We approached Mr. J’s embassy who confirmed that nothing could be done in his personal circumstance. We then requested a DNA Test to confirm parentage of his daughter. We submitted the application citing “Exceptional Circumstances” and especially “insurmountable obstacles”. The supporting documents along with comprehensive legal representations ran to a few hundred pages. Mr. J’s application was approved under the 10 year Partner Route.

Background:
Mr. D is a British Citizen who met his wife, W, while she was in the UK as a visitor. She was previously married. She has a young daughter, Y and they both wished to apply to join Mr. D in the UK. Y’s father was from another relationship to who W was not married. Whilst W was in the UK for 6 months her daughter Y was being cared for by the child’s father. The challenge, in this case, was to evidence that W had Sole responsibility for Y especially since she was never married to Y’s father and only had a verbal agreement between them regarding the upbringing of Y. There were further complications in that Mr. D was self employed and submitted his accounts without employing the services of an accountant.

Action:
The first obstacle, in this case, was to make sure Mr. D could meet the financial requirements and produce the specified documents as laid down in Appendix FM SE. Whilst his accounts to all intents and purposes were in order, as he was not registered for VAT the Rules required that an accountant’s certificate of confirmation, from an accountant who is a member of a UK Recognised Supervisory Body must be produced. This was remedied albeit after a delay. The second complication was to evidence Sole Responsibility. W produced a signed letter from Ys father attesting that he did not object to the child moving to the UK. Whilst there is no actual definition of Sole Responsibility there is Guidance and case law to which caseworkers will base their decision. It was therefore advised that W provide a Court Order emphatically stating that she was the sole carer of her child. After a year of toing and froing between the Home Office and the applicants, they were both granted entry under Appendix FM.