March 15, 2012

Immigration – Government Money spinner?

This post was written by: Ravinder Kaur

Immigration in the UK is at its most contentious. It’s the stuff of debates for and against the new stricter approach to immigration by the government. Despite the ever tightening of the rules, the UK is still the destination of choice. The home office have consistently raised their application fees to new heights yet applicants will find the money to pay fees.

The Home Office are now offering to come to your home to collect your applications by way of courier and immigration officers will visit your home to collect bio metric information and make a decision on your applications within 24 hours, all for the princely sum of £6000 for the service alone.

Immigration is a business despite the very human and real effects upon the applicants. Each application is money in the pot .The home office forgets that the applicants are real people and the effects of refusals especially in the case of spouses are devastating.

Case Study

I was contacted by a young lady who is married to a Ugandan national. He had applied for entry clearance as a spouse on numerous occasions without success and paying application fees on each occasion. He had also appealed without success. He re-applied and was again refused. The applicant had entered the United Kingdom illegally, he had sought asylum which had been refused. He was detained and when removed to country of origin had been required to be chaperoned by immigration officials.

He was denied entry into country of origin, hence he was returned to the UK at public expense and placed in detention. He was released following a judicial review application and then absconded. He then entered into a genuine and loving relationship with his wife, however following a routine police check of their car on a night out, he was detained and removed.

We sought to prove the elements of the immigration rules with regards to the spouse visas. We then accessed information as to the reasons for the immigration breaches. The high commission and the court had previously failed to consider that there were reasons and explanations for the previous behaviour and breaches. We were able to argue against 320(11), frustrating the immigration rules and against immigration rule 320(3) with regards to establishing identity.

We were able to obtain a successful decision at court under immigration rules and human rights. He is now is in the United Kingdom furthering his married life.

All is not lost. Even if your immigration history is not perfect the correct legal approach can get you the results you desire.