Deception Alleged under Para 322 (5), Visa Granted in Complex Case!
Mr. P arrived in the UK about twelve years ago. He had various immigration status from Student to Tier 1 (General) Migrant. He was married and had a child born in the UK. Mr. P has always been a law-abiding citizen and his integrity has never been questioned. In 2016, Mr. P submitted a settlement application at one of the UK Visas and Premium (UKVI) Premium Service locations. At his appointment, he was served with a letter informing him that his application was refused. This was pursuant to Paragraph 322 (5) of the Immigration Rules due to TAX DISCREPANCIES which were identified by the immigration caseworker while considering his settlement application, and of which the client was not aware. Since the application that was submitted on the basis of his ten years continuous lawful residence, the refusal attracted a right of appeal.
Home Office ILR Refusal Due to Tax Discrepancies Creates Stress and Worry
Mr. P was afraid and did not know how to deal with the issues raised in his settlement application, so he sought the opinion of a professional who could assist in his matter. It was so important for him to find the right immigration advice. This decision was given before his leave was to expire, his wife was his dependent holding a Tier 1 (General) PBS visa, they had a son, a mortgage to pay, and maintaining his right to work was crucial for him and his family.
Through a Google search Mr. P found A Y & J Solicitors, and following a detailed consultation, he instructed us to assist him and his wife with their immigration matters. During the consultation, our experts identified the potential issues and informed Mr. P that he would be in a better position to file a new long residence application via post and enclose the necessary evidence to show that he is a person of good character and should not fall foul for refusal. We also recommended he vary his wife’s immigration status to enable them both to retain their right to work and increase the chances of succeeding in his new settlement application.
Correct Errors and Inform Home Office on Indefinite Leave to Remain Application
Our experts at A Y & J Solicitors also identified that there was indeed a massive discrepancy in his income declared to HMRC at the time when he was on a Tier 1 (General) visa which was later corrected, and a new tax liability was issued to the client. Now, despite him correcting his tax return with HMRC, there was always a doubt whether our client’s explanation of the error created was sufficient to satisfy the decision maker.
While our client’s application was pending, we received a questionnaire with respect to his earnings while on a Tier 1 (General) Migrant visa, along with a request for additional documents. A Y & J Solicitors assisted Mr P in completing the questionnaire, especially with regards to his amendment for the tax year 2012/2013. Apart from the answers provided in the questionnaire, we prepared a set of detailed representations along with submitting an independent tax report which highlighted that the tax amendments were accepted by HMRC, and penalties were not being issued to those tax payers with evidence to show that the tax payer did not have intentions of deceiving the Tax Office.
New Immigration Solution for Wife and Child Also Protects Client
While Mr. P’s application was pending, his wife completed ten years continuous lawful residence and our experts at A Y & J Solicitors proposed that she informs UKVI that she was now settled and their child is entitled to British citizenship. By doing so, we increased the chances of granting Mr. P leave to remain.
A week later, we received correspondence from UKVI informing us that Mr. P would not qualify for settlement due to the discrepancies within the tax year for 2012/13.
A week later, we received correspondence from UKVI informing us that Mr. P would not qualify for settlement due to the discrepancies within the tax year for 2012/13. However, UKVI accepted that there is a well-established Article 8 and our client’s removal from the UK would contravene Article 8. Having waited for over 2 years to receive a decision and visa, Mr. P decided not to challenge the UKVI findings and accepted the Limited Leave to Remain visa. We contributed to the life change of this couple, who can now reside, work and live in the UK without pressure and insecurity of their future.