A Y & J Solicitors Helps Care Business Reinstate Tier 2 Sponsor Licence
A care home, Company A, with over 800 employees serving clients around London lost their Tier 2 Sponsor Licence following a compliance visit from the home office.
Company A was established over 20 years ago in the care industry had three non-EEA employees who were on a Tier 2 visa. All three employees were vital to the engine of the business since they were managing branches where the Sponsor was not able to recruit local staff despite having advertised the positions for over 12 months. The loss of the Tier 2 Sponsor Licence would have meant the closure of the three branches where the employees were working. Tier 2 Sponsor Licence is always subject to compliance control by the Home Office, and if businesses are found not to be compliant, they can lose their licence.
Not knowing how to handle the matter, and being frightened of losing the licence, the owner handed over her case to us.
How AY & J helped Company A have their sponsorship license reinstated
Our most experienced lawyer was appointed to handle the Suspension matter. Since the Home Office were alleging the non-EEA positions were not genuine, evidence to refute this was essential.
We worked with the owner and the employees to collate the required evidence. No matter how much evidence you have, if it is not of sufficient quality, there are high chances that the Tier 2 Licence might be revoked.
We prepared a set of legal representations addressing each issue raised by the Home Office and left no room doubt.
The Result: Company A had its sponsorship license reinstated
Within less than one month the Home Office reinstated the Tier 2 Licence to an A rating. The owner retained the senior staff, and the branches continue to operate.
A Y & J Assists Entrepreneur Applicant In Receiving Positive Decision on Second Extension Despite Considerable Complexities
We were introduced to Mr K by a previous client, with the intention of seeking some advice on his immigration matters.
Upon undertaking an initial call with Mr K, we were able to start assisting him right away. Mr K had previously completed the applications himself and was at the stage whereby he should qualify for settlement, but due to excessive absences, he was not eligible. Since the closure of the Tier 1 Entrepreneur category, the Home Office have put a strict timing on an applicant’s deadlines to submit both extension and settlement applications. It was imperative to account for this from the outset and advise Mr K on all of his options, especially the future timeline and considerations.
Mr K was an established entrepreneur who for many years had invested and grown his multi-million-pound business in the UK. He was looking for a professional service that would represent his best chances of ultimately obtaining settlement in the UK, and to limit the work and efforts on his part.
How AY & J helped our client achieve his second extension
Reviewing the case
The first stage was to undertake a full review of Mr K’s file, previous applications submitted to the Home Office so we could have a clear picture of his case.
Secondly, we were able to provide Mr C further advice on his prospects, and request only the updated and relevant documentation. The complication was that Mr K had joined an existing company, meaning he was required to show a net creation in the level of employment in the company, following his appointment. From the evidence of the previous application, it appeared Mr K did not maintain the correct level of employment. It also appeared that the correct evidence was not provided.
We conducted a full review of the payroll of the company since its inception to best advise our client. We also liaised with the Business Helpdesk in order to find a solution for Mr K. Having an experienced caseworker can be vital in providing viable and attainable solutions to ensure the best chances of success. We developed a succinct line of argument and requested the correct evidence.
Preparing the case on our client’s behalf
We drafted a detailed legal representation letter setting out the relevant requirements and comprehensive legal argument to put forward to the Home Office.
We assisted with uploading the wealth of evidence directly via the online system, so Mr K and his family simply had to attend their biometric appointments with passports in hand.
The outcome affected the whole family, three children in full-time education, and ultimately Mr K’s business prospects for remaining in the UK after a huge investment of both time and money. Whilst the outcome could not be guaranteed, we worked determinedly for Mr K and left no stone unturned.
Result: Mr K was awarded a second extension to his Visa
The result was returned within less than three weeks, and we were able to inform Mr K of the great news for him and his family too. Mr K was extremely happy with the result, and we will continue to work with Mr K towards achieving settlement.
In the event you have any questions, doubts or concerns as to how the closure of the entrepreneur route may affect you, it is important to seek legal advice from an experienced immigration lawyer now.
A Y & J Assists in Overturning of AI and Machine Learning Expert Tier 1 Exceptional Tech Nation Talent Visa Refusal
Mr A, an expert in AI with years of experience, has attracted the interest of companies in a number of countries. Despite being secure on his knowledge and experience, he was concerned whether this was sufficient to convince the endorsement body, Tech Nation, that he was ‘exceptional’.
He applied for endorsement to Tech Nation, but within three days of submitting all the mandatory documents, he received a decision on his endorsement notifying him that it had been refused.
It was heart-breaking since he had made plans of moving his family to the UK. It was his view and those that had prepared his endorsement application that he had done everything to show a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT in the IT digital industry, as required by the endorsement body. He was a mentor for years to students who were passionate about IT, he has a long track record of significant impact in IT digital world, a speaker to his peers, and a true leader who was always up for challenges.
How AY & J helped our client have their refusal overturned
Reviewing the decision made by Tech Nation
Only having reviewed the decision made by the endorsement body, we immediately identified that it was an error, and Mr A’s endorsement should have been approved. A senior member of staff was assigned to Mr A, and a plan of action was out in place as to how to achieve the best result for our client.
Preparing a challenge
We prepared a challenge to the refusal points and addressed each document submitted with the application. It was important to point out what was the significant impact he had created in his years of experience as a leader and why it was important to have the decision reviewed.
An important issue to address was his potential future contribution to the UK IT digital industry, which we proved by providing relevant written work from his home country, and publications in the digital world.
Mr A’s expert lawyer also used her substantial experience to prepare the best possible endorsement application, leaving no window open for refusal.
The Result: Our client’s application was approved
Within less than one month, the endorsement body was successfully persuaded by A Y & J Solicitors’ review grounds and approved Mr A’s application. Mr A considered that A Y & J Solicitors’ advice was invaluable in obtaining this result.
Successful EEA Appeal For Married Couple
Mrs C, Ghanaian national, arrived in the UK in November 2012 on a six-month Standard Visit Visa and overstayed in the UK ever since. Shortly after in 2013, she met her partner, an EEA national. They had been living together since 2013 and married by proxy in 2016.
In April 2019, Mrs C had applied for a Residence Card to confirm she was a family member of a European Economic Area (EEA) national who was exercising his Treaty rights in the UK. In May 2019, Mrs C and her spouse were invited for an interview by the Home Office. The couple attended and were questioned by the Home Office separately. Unfortunately, in July 2019, the Home Office refused Mrs C’s application for a Residence Card on the basis that her marriage was one of convenience.
The application was refused solely because of a marriage interview which took place on 26 July 2019. Due to discrepancies in Mrs C and her spouse’s answers, the Home Office concluded that the marriage was not genuine.
How AY&J Solicitors helped
We advised Mrs C to appeal against this decision under Regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, as she informed us that her marriage was indeed a genuine one. After reviewing the refusal decision, it was clear that the reasons for refusal were unreasonable. Mrs C and her husband were asked over 300 questions during the interview, and they provided the same answers. The discrepancies occurred due to the way the questions were asked. Also, the couple were nervous.
The Home Office has the burden of proving a marriage was one of convenience. They had not provided reasonable grounds for refusal, as the couple had plausible explanations for the alleged discrepancies outlined within the refusal decision.
The caseworker assigned to Mrs C drafted the grounds of appeal, setting out relevant case law in support of Mrs C’s appeal and we lodged the appeal in-time.
Thereafter, the caseworker had a meeting with Mrs C and her husband and requested responses to each of the refusal grounds put forth by the Home Office. Mrs C and her spouse provided their explanations, which formed the basis of their witness statements, drafted by Mrs C’s Solicitor.
We then requested Mrs C obtain evidence to support the appeal. The documents formed a part of the appeal bundle. We prepared three appeal bundles and submitted them to the relevant parties. We then instructed experienced counsel who represented Mrs Cs on the date of hearing.
Four weeks after the date of hearing, we received a decision from the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) confirming that Mrs C’s appeal had been allowed. The FtT Judge agreed that Mrs C and her spouse were indeed a genuine couple, and the decision of the Home Office was incorrect.
Home Offices Decision To Refuse Entry Clearance Found To Be Unlawful
Mr B was an Indian national and married to Mrs X, a British citizen born in the UK.
Mr B initially arrived in the UK in 2009, having been granted a Tier 4 Student Visa, valid from 31 October 2009 to 28 January 2011, to study in the United Kingdom. After the expiry of his Student Visa in 2011, he became an overstayer.
In September 2017, Mr B was encountered by immigration officers who allege he had been working illegally in a fish and chip shop. After that, Mr B was detained and interviewed. In September 2017, Mr B submitted a human rights application based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was refused by the Home Office.
Subsequently, in March 2018, Mr B applied for Leave to Remain under family and private life route being the spouse of a British citizen. However, his application was rejected because he didn’t pay the fee. Mr B then lodged Judicial Review proceedings, which were subsequently dismissed.
In June 2018, Mr B made an application under family and private life, which was rejected as again, he failed to pay the fee. Mr B then lodged further Judicial Review proceedings, which were dismissed. In October 2018, Mr B applied for Further Leave to Remain under the family and private life route, which was rejected because Mr B failed to pay the fee. Thereafter, Mr B sought legal advice from different representatives, who advised him to leave the UK and apply for entry-clearance.
Following the advice, Mr B voluntarily left the UK in April 2019. On 17 May 2019, he made an application for Entry-Clearance under Appendix FM based on his relationship with his wife, a British citizen living in the UK.
On 01 July 2019, his application for entry-clearance as a spouse was refused by the Home Office. The primary reason for refusal was that the Home Office concluded that Mr B did not meet the suitability requirements for entry clearance as a partner because his character and conduct made it undesirable to issue him entry clearance. The Home Office also refused to exercise discretion in Mr B’s favour.
The Home Office alleged that Mr B had previously used deception in an application for Leave to Remain in the UK and because he was working illegally during his period of overstaying and he allegedly admitted this to immigration officers. The Home Office also stated that he made frivolous applications to frustrate immigration rules. However, the Home Office did accept that Mr B met the eligibility requirements for entry clearance as a partner.
How A Y & J helped
We were approached by Mr B to prepare and submit an appeal against the refusal decision. The decision was not as per Mr B’s right to family and private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. Mr B informed us that he had never stated that he had been working illegally and there was no evidence to the contrary. Besides, he had not made frivolous applications; all of his visa applications and applications for Judicial Review were made upon his previous lawyer’s advice, and they submitted the applications on his behalf.
We drafted grounds of appeal, setting out why the Home Office decision was unlawful and not in accordance with the Immigration Rules and Mr B’s rights under Article 8. We also appealed within the deadline.
We advised Mr B and his wife of all the relevant documentary evidence required to support the appeal. We then prepared witness statements and three paginated appeal bundles, comprising of evidence of the relationship between Mr B and his wife and the family and private life he had established in the UK. We then submitted the bundles to the relevant departments.
We instructed an experienced barrister to attend the hearing on behalf of Mr B and represent him in the First-tier Tribunal.
A few weeks after the hearing at the First-tier Tribunal, we received determination confirming that the appeal had been allowed. We had successfully rebutted the Home Office’s grounds for refusal.
Refusal Based On Spouse Visa Interview Overturned
Mr A, an Indian national, was married to a Romanian national. He had been an overstayer in the UK when he started his relationship with his wife. Mr A decided to depart the UK voluntarily and returned to India in December 2017 with his Romanian partner. They decided to marry in India. Thereafter, Mr A applied for an EEA Family Permit through his lawyer. This was initially refused due to a lack of supporting documentary evidence. He then reapplied for the EEA family permit, which was approved by the Home Office.
After that, Mr A entered the UK on an EEA family permit in 2018, valid for six months. Before its expiry, he applied for a Residence Card being a family member of an EEA national. Mr A and his wife were invited to attend a marriage interview. Subsequently, his application was refused by the Home Office in a decision letter dated 17 May 2019.
Reasons for refusal
The application was refused based on the marriage interview; the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) was not satisfied that Mr A was in a genuine and subsisting relationship with his EEA National spouse and therefore concluded that Regulation 2 of the EEA Regulation 2016 was not satisfied. The SSHD concluded that the marriage was one of convenience, for the sole purposes of remaining in the United Kingdom. The SSHD highlighted several inconsistencies in answers during the marriage interview.
Mr A’s previous legal representatives had lodged the appeal on behalf of Mr A. However, Mr A was notified that the appeal was out-of-time. The First-Tier Tribunal (FtT) requested for reasons as to why the appeal had been lodged out of time and Mr A’s previous lawyer stated they had received the refusal decision by the Home Office on 29 May 2019, whereas, the decision letter was dated 17 May 2019. Therefore, his lawyer sent his appeal in-time on 04 June 2019.
How A Y & J helped
Mr A’s assigned caseworker arranged a meeting with Mr A and his wife, who both explained the alleged discrepancies outlined within the refusal decision. We prepared detailed witness statements on behalf of Mr A and his wife addressing each alleged discrepancy and prepared three appeal bundles consisting of almost 800 pages. This bundle comprised of three years of supporting evidence as to the genuineness of their relationship.
The caseworker at A Y & J Solicitors then wrote to the FtT explaining that the appeal was indeed lodged in-time by the previous lawyer. They attached evidence of Royal mail tracking and the envelope the decision was received in.
We instructed an experienced barrister to attend the FtT and represent our client on the date of hearing. A few weeks after the hearing, we received a decision confirming that Mr A’s appeal had been allowed and it had been concluded by the Judge that the Home Office had not proved that the marriage was one of convenience. The FtT Judge was of the view that the marriage was a genuine one.
Shortly after our successful hearing, the Home Office issued Mr A with a Residence Card, confirming that he is a family member of an EEA national.
How A Y & J Solicitors Assisted an EU National to Enter the UK Despite her Being Refused Entry at the Border
Ms C, a national of Romania approached A Y & J Solicitors regarding being refused entry into the UK after being interviewed by Immigration Officers from the Border Force at Gatwick Airport. The answers she had provided during this interview formed the basis of refusal of admission.
Ms C had worked as an escort in the UK in 2014, and she had informed the immigration officers of this. She had travelled in the UK in order to seek employment and live with her partner, a British citizen. However, when questioned by the immigration officers, she had not informed the interviewer of her relationship with her partner.
Ms C then returned to Romania on the same day as being refused entry to the UK.
How A Y & J helped with an out of time appeal and extension of time application
Extension of time application
Ms C contacted us seven weeks after returning to Romania. Since Ms C was lodging an out of country appeal, she had 28 days from the date of the Home Office decision to appeal.
We advised Ms C that as 28 days had passed, she was out of time to appeal against the decision. However, we informed her that we would lodge her appeal and submit an extension of time application on her behalf. The First-tier Tribunal judge would assess her reasons as to why she is lodging the appeal out of time and would also consider whether an extension of time should be granted after considering the facts of her case.
Ms C informed us that the reason for her delay in lodging an appeal was because she was not aware of the deadline. Furthermore, due to her limited English, she found it difficult to instruct an immigration lawyer.
We are a multi-lingual firm and have a fluent Romanian speaking Senior Immigration Lawyer. We were, therefore, able to advise Ms C in her language.
Ms C’s extension of time was granted by the Judge, who considered that Ms C had good reasons for the delay in lodging her appeal. The appeal was subsequently listed for hearing at the First-tier Tribunal.
While we waited for Ms C’s hearing, we requested the Home Office to grant Ms C temporary admission to the UK so she could attend the hearing.
The appeal hearing
Ms C was refused admission under Regulation 23(1) and Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. Regulation 23(1) states, “A person is not entitled to be admitted to the United Kingdom by virtue of regulation 11 if a refusal to admit that person is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 27”.
Ms C was refused admission to the UK on the basis that she posed a risk to the requirement of public policy. The Home Office argued that her removal was also to protect her from exploitation and trafficking. This concern was due to her admission to border officers at Gatwick airport that she had worked as an escort.
We informed Ms C that the decision was not made in accordance with the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016. The Home Office failed to provide Ms C with a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence of her reasons for travelling to the UK and also ignored the fact that Ms C’s was not intending to enter the UK to work as an escort. Most importantly, the Home Office did not provide any evidence to substantiate the claim that Ms C was a risk to public policy, or that she was at risk of exploitation.
Our team prepared witness statements by Ms C and her partner and drafted robust grounds for appeal.
Result: The Home Office Withdrew the Refusal Issued to Ms C
On receipt of the appeal bundles, the Home Office decided to withdraw its decision to refuse Ms C admission to the UK on the grounds their initial decision was incorrect.
We then contacted the Border Force and requested confirmation that Ms C could re-enter the UK without any issues. We then received a document in writing from the Border Force confirming that Ms C is now permitted to enter the UK. We informed Ms C that she could now arrange to travel to the UK. To ensure our client’s safe passage, we remained in touch with the Border Force to ensure Ms C’s entry was trouble-free.
Ms C travelled to the UK a few days after the decision was made and joined her partner, a British citizen.
A Y & J Solicitors Assists a Spouse and Mother of a British Child Granted to be Granted Settlement
Ms B entered the UK on 11 March 2011. She was granted leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 1 (General) partner until 14 January 2013.
After that, Ms B applied for Further Leave to Remain as a spouse, which was granted on 14 January 2013 and valid until 14 January 2015. Unfortunately, the relationship between Ms B and her husband broke down.
Ms B and her ex-husband had a son together who was a British citizen. The child lived with Ms B.
How we Helped Ms B apply for Settlement
On 31 October 2014, Ms B applied for Leave to Remain as a parent of a British citizen (five-year route), which was granted. Subsequently, on 25 April 2017, Ms B was granted Further Leave to Remain as a Parent (five-year route), valid until 30 October 2019.
We prepared and submitted Ms B’s application for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) based on Ms B completing five years in the UK as a parent of a British Citizen. We informed Ms B that she qualified for ILR as she would complete five years’ continuous lawful residence on the parent route on 30 October 2019; however, she also had the option of applying 28 days before the qualifying date. Therefore, the earliest date she could apply for ILR was on 3 October 2019.
We informed Ms B that the requirements which must be met for a successful ILR as a Parent application. We assessed Ms B’s circumstances. We then informed Ms B that she met the financial and accommodation requirements. Ms B also obtained a qualification for the relevant English Language conditions and passed the Life in the UK test.
We carried out the following work on Ms B’s matter, for the preparation of her Indefinite Leave to Remain application.
- We prepared a list of documents required from Mrs B in support of her application
- We review the documents received from Ms B and requested any additional documentation required.
- We drafted the relevant application form for Indefinite Leave to Remain
- We drafted legal representations on Ms B’s behalf;
- We booked an appointment for Ms B at the visa application centre;
- We uploaded all of Ms B’s supporting evidence onto UKVI’s commercial partner;
- We represented Ms B, until her application was decided.
We made clear to Ms B that if she had any criminal convictions, her application for Indefinite Leave to Remain could be refused. We also informed Ms B that she may also be refused under Paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules if she had ever made false representations or failed to disclose any material fact to the Home Office or failed to comply with conditions attached to any previous grant of leave to remain.
Result: The Application was Approved
We submitted Ms B’s application, and she was granted ILR. We ensured that the process was smooth and simple, and Ms B was elated with the outcome. This complex application was made simple by our experienced and dedicated lawyers.