APPEALS

Appeal Determination Summaries

Hasan Kilicarslan v Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the UK as the un-married partner of an EU national was approved on 21st December 2007. Our client, a Turkish National, had first been granted leave to enter the UK in March 2002 as a student and this student visa was subsequently extended by the Secretary of State until August 2003. An application for further leave to remain was refused. In August 2004 our client’s previous representatives submitted an application under the ECAA but our client withdrew this in May 2006 and then applied to remain in UK as unmarried partner of EU national, whom he had met in June 2003 and with whom he has a daughter, born February 2006. This application was submitted on 9th July 2006 and after lengthy delays eventually refused on 27th August 2007 on grounds that our client was considered an over-stayer and had no valid leave at the time the application was made and as an unmarried partner was not a family member who automatically benefited from free movement rights. Directions were issued for our client’s removal. At the appeal on 14th October 2007 the Immigration judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client, including evidence that having to leave would disrupt his private and family life in the UK. Since his partner does not speak Turkish he argued it would be difficult for her and their child to relocate to Turkey. On the evidence presented, the Judge considered it did not seem logical to require our client to leave the UK to apply for an EEA family permit especially when our client would have to delay such an application until after he had completed fifteen months of military service in Turkey. The Judge found that the refusal of our client’s application for a residence card was not proportionate and our client’s appeal persuaded the Judge that the discretion of the Secretary of State should have been exercised differently, he was satisfied and ordered a residence card to be issued.

Mehmet Demirhan v Secretary of State – work permit approved, entry refused

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office’s decision to refuse him leave to enter the UK was allowed on 2nd March 2008. Our client was granted a work permit on 26th April 2007 but when our client submitted his application for entry clearance at the British Embassy in Istanbul, it was refused on grounds of lack of documentation to support his experience and training although references and evidence of our client’s experience had been submitted with the WP1 application. The ECO was not satisfied that our client was capable of undertaking the employment specified in the work permit nor that he intended to only take this employment. It was also stated that our client had previously applied for a student visa which had been refused. The appeal was heard before an Immigration Judge who considered evidence supporting our client’s experience, training and character and oral evidence was also heard from our client’s sponsor and future employer. The Judge found that accurate and reliable documentary evidence was produced relating to our client’s previous employment history and that our client and his sponsor had submitted all relevant documentation . The Judge was satisfied that our client did not intend to take employment except as specified in his work permit and would be able to accommodate and maintain himself without recourse to public funds. For these reasons, the appeal was allowed.

Tunc Yarulmaz v Secretary of State

Our client, a Turkish national, first came to the UK in 1996 and claimed political asylum at port but this was refused on 2nd November 1996. His previous representatives submitted an appeal but he never heard the outcome and had no contact with the Home Office since then. His partner is a Turkish national with indefinite leave to remain, and they have lived together since 2004 and had a son in October 2004. Our client applied for leave to remain as an un-married partner of a national with indefinite leave to remain but this application was refused on 23rd September 2007. Our client initially decided to appeal against this refusal but then withdrew this appeal and left the UK. He married his partner in Turkey in December 2007 and subsequently applied to enter the UK as a dependent spouse and in March 2008 the application was approved by the British Counsulate in Istanbul.

Tugce Yildirim v Secretary of State

Our client is a Turkish national who first entered the UK on 23rd November 2005 as an au pair. She wanted to set up a business as a self-employed person under the clause in the EC Association Agreement with Turkey providing domestic and commercial cleaning services. This application was refused on 17th September 2007 with questions raised over her self-employed status. Our client asked for this application to be re-considered but again it was refused. Our client appealed against this decision and was heard before an Immigration Judge who considered evidence supporting our client’s business plan. The Immigration Judge concluded that our client would be genuinely self-employed and the appeal was allowed on 12th March 2008

Ahmet Erdogen v Secretary of State

Our client, a Turkish national, entered the UK on 14th March 2007 with leave to enter as a visitor for 6 months. In September 2007 he applied for leave to remain as a self-employed person under the EC Turkish Association Agreement. Our client proposed working as a self-employed hairdresser initially renting a chair in an established salon for two days a week. Our client’s application was refused on 20th January 2008 on the grounds that there was no proof that he had active clients as stated. The appeal was heard on 1st March 2008 infront of an Immigration Judge and allowed, the Judge stating that our client’s agreement with the established salon does not amount to disguised employment.

Ali Khan / Peter Hunt

Our client, a South African national, was granted leave to remain as a civil partner of a UK citizen after gaining approval for entry to the UK as a proposed civil partner and then registering this partnership in the UK. Our client had met his partner, a UK citizen, in South Africa in December 1997. They had started a relationship and exchanged regular visits. Our client applied for a student visa to enter the UK in September 2007 but this was refused on the basis that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that our client intended to follow a course of study or depart from the UK at the completion of his studies. An application to enter the UK as a proposed civil partner was granted on 9th November 2007 and he was granted 6 months. The couple celebrated their partnership on 27th December 2007 and our client was subsequently granted an initial two years to remain in the UK.

Eylem Hussein v Secretary of State

Our client, a Turkish National, arrived in the UK on 27th October 2005 as a dependent spouse of a British citizen having been granted leave to enter as a dependent spouse for two years. On 18th May 2007 our client applied for indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a victim of domestic violence but this was refused on 12th January 2008. This application was refused on the ground that the Secretary of State was not satisfied that our client could establish her marriage was caused to permanently break down before the end of the probationary period as a result of domestic violence. The appeal was heard infront of an Immigration Judge who heard both oral and documentary evidence from our client supporting the incidences of violence, her injuries and hospitalisation, including photographs of her injuries and a police letter to support these. The Judge accepted that our client had been assaulted on a number of occasions and was a victim of domestic violence and this domestic violence caused the break down of her marriage. The appeal was allowed on February 24th 2008

Yigit v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Turkish Association Agreement (Ankara Agreement) was approved by an Immigration Judge on 20 July 2006. Our client’s application was submitted by her previous representative. She instructed our firm when her application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that she was in a satisfactory financial position to invest in a business, nor was it satisfied that our client had sufficient funds to maintain and accommodate her and her family without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 29 June 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated her earnings, assets and monthly expenditure. It was also demonstrated that our client had a sound business plan and was in a financial position which enabled her to invest in her business. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the proposed business was genuine and viable, and as such, our client should be granted leave to remain in the UK. We wish Ms Yigit the very best in her company IECT International Education Consultancy www.iect.org

Ergun Nemburt v. Secretary of State

Our client Ergun Nemburt’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse his application for a 3yr extension visa under the Ankara Agreement was approved by an Immigration Judge on Monday 10 April. Ergun had submitted his application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused.

Ergun’s appeal was listed to be heard on 17 March 2006, however the Home Office applied for an adjournment on the basis that they had not had sufficient opportunity to review the volume of documents submitted by DavidsonMorris. The appeal was finally heard on 10 April. The Immigration Judge heard evidence from Ergun and at the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal was allowed. Note – it is very unusual for a Judge to give their decision on the day of the hearing, but in this case, it was clear from the documents and Ergun’s evidence that he was bone-fide self employed and the Home Office had over looked crucial evidence.

We wish Ergun the very best in his travel company www.ezytravel.co.uk

Djimertova v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Bulgaria was approved by an Immigration Judge on 26 May 2006. Our client had submitted her application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from her business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate her without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 9 May 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid her tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, our client should be granted leave to remain in the UK. We wish Sonia the best in her cleaning business http://www.cleanwell-london.co.uk/

Lazarov v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Bulgaria was approved by an Immigration Judge on 6 July 2006. Our client had submitted his application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from his business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate him and his family without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 21 June 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and his accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid his tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, our client should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Timofte v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Romania was approved by an Immigration Judge on 21 July 2006. Our client had submitted her application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from her business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate her without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 3 July 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid her tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, she should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Craciun v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Romania was approved by an Immigration Judge on 26 July 2006. Our client had submitted his application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from his business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate him and his wife without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 19 July 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client which illustrated the income generated by the business contrasted with our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid his tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, he should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Vacheva v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Bulgaria was approved by an Immigration Judge on 26 July 2006. Our client had submitted her application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from her business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate her and her daughter without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 24 July 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid her tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, she should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Yousfi v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision to refuse her application for entry clearance as the spouse of a person present and settled in the UK was approved by an Immigration Judge on 23 August 2006. Our client had submitted her application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that both parties to the marriage intended to live permanently together, and that the marriage was subsisting and that our client and her spouse would be able to maintain themselves financially without recourse to public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 9 August 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client’s spouse which demonstrated that the relationship was indeed subsisting and they intended to live together permanently. It was also demonstrated that our client’s spouse was able to maintain and accommodate them both and that his s tax and National Insurance obligations have been paid in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the marriage was subsisting and that both parties intended to live together permanently, and as such, our client should be granted leave to enter the UK.

Redzhepova v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Bulgaria was approved by an Immigration Judge on 15 August 2006. Our client’s application was submitted by her previous representative. She instructed our firm when her application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from her business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate her without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 25 July 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid her tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, our client should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Deykova v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Bulgaria was approved by an Immigration Judge on 27 July 2006. Our client had submitted her application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from her business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate her without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 18 July 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid her tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, our client should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Dey v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse his application for leave to remain as a student in the United Kingdom was approved by an Immigration Judge on 2 March 2006. Our client had submitted his application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that our client had made satisfactory progress in his studies. The Home Office also doubted our client’s intent to leave the UK upon completion of his studies. Our client’s appeal was heard on 27 February 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client which illustrated his academic progress. Exam results and qualifications earned by our client were presented to the court. It was also demonstrated that our client is in good financial standing and able to maintain and accommodate himself and his wife without recourse to employment or public funds. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that our client is making satisfactory progress with his studies and therefore should be granted leave to remain in the UK.

Petrova v. Secretary of State

Our client’s appeal against the Home Office decision to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a self-employed businessperson under the provisions of the EC Association Agreement with Bulgaria was approved by an Immigration Judge on 23 June 2006. Our client had submitted her application personally and instructed our firm when his application was refused. Our client’s application was initially refused on the grounds that the Home Office was not satisfied that the profits from her business are sufficient to maintain and accommodate her without recourse to employment or public funds. Our client’s appeal was heard on 19 June 2006. The Immigration Judge heard oral and documentary evidence from our client and her accountant which illustrated the income generated by the business and our client’s monthly expenses. It was also demonstrated that our client has paid her tax and National Insurance obligations in full. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge was satisfied that the business is sufficiently profitable to cover all of our client’s expenses, and as such, our client should be granted leave to remain in the UK.