Results that change lives

We have recently dealt with a large number of dependent visa refusals on the basis that the Sole Responsibility Test had not been met by the UK-based parent.

After advising on what type of evidence was required to show that one parent had abdicated or abandoned responsibility for their child, we were able to make successful applications on behalf of our clients.

And those applications that had been erroneously refused, we challenged through the Judicial Review process, also with successful outcomes.

In the last 12–24 months, we have seen a growing number of visit visa applications being refused. The reasons for refusal are often ridiculous, with wording having clearly been cut and pasted from other refusal letters, stating other people’s names and nationalities.

We have also seen arguably discriminatory financial decisions, using generic economic wording to refuse nationals from poorer countries. Documentary evidence often gets ignored and standard reasons for refusal paragraphs are used, which have no relevance to the individual application.

These applications should be challenged and although there is no right of appeal in such cases, the refusal decisions can be challenged by way of judicial review. Advisa Solicitors currently have a success rate of over 95% in overturning visit visa refusals.

Since opening our firm in 2008, we have helped large numbers of foreign nationals to obtain and extend Skilled Worker visas so that they can come to the UK and work for the National Health Service (NHS) as Doctors, Nurses, Carers and more.

We have also helped Students to switch into the Skilled Worker category upon completion of their studies, many of whom have gone on to work for the NHS.

In recognition of the hard work and dedication that foreign nationals have made and are continuing to make to the NHS, we are now offering a 15% discount for visa applications made from workers in the NHS.

We successfully represented a client with an appeal against the refusal of his ILR application on the grounds of his private life. Our client had been living in the UK for almost 15 years in total, however when he applied for ILR under the 10 year Rule, his application was refused on the basis that he had been absent from the UK for a period of more than 6 months.

We successfully argued that our client had built a life for himself in the UK, relying on witness statements from friends, letters of recommendation from employers and gathering as much evidence as possible to show that our client was a benefit to society.

The Judge accepted our argument that our client’s private life in the UK outweighed the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control and his appeal was allowed. He was given indefinite leave following the implementation of the appeal despite the appeal being granted on private life grounds.

We have recently had a number of indefinite leave applications refused on the basis that there was a gap in the 5 year or 10 year “qualifying period”. Fortunately, we were able to overturn these decisions in favour of our clients.

In one particular case, the Home Office tried to argue that because our client’s appeal against a previous refusal had ultimately been unsuccessful, this led to a gap in her qualifying period. We were able to argue that Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 protected our client’s position throughout, and that it was irrelevant whether or not her appeal was unsuccessful, as a fresh application had been submitted within the required 14 days in order for her leave to be “continuous”.

This was eventually accepted by the Home Office and our client was granted indefinite leave.

Over the last 6–12 months we have seen a significant rise in the number of spouse visa refusals on maintenance grounds. The changes to the maintenance requirements and in particular the requirement for a couple with no children to show income of at least £18,600 have made it very difficult for many people to successfully sponsor their spouses to join them in the UK.

Quite apart from the injustice that the financial threshold can cause in individual cases, we have seen many applicants being refused on the basis that, despite having sufficient earnings, their documents do not meet the strict documentary criteria. There has been a reluctance on the part of Embassies to apply the documentary flexibility rules.

We have also seen several decisions where the complexity of the Rules has caused decision makers themselves to make errors — particularly when considering combinations of income sources such as savings. If you have been refused on maintenance grounds, or are preparing an application, contact us and we will be happy to discuss your case.