Family Immigration

In the most recent country guidance case for Zimbabwe, the Tribunal found that risk on return to Zimbabwe is no longer limited to those individuals who are members or supporters of the MDC party; individuals who do not demonstrate support for the ZANU-PF party are also at risk. Furthermore, being or having been a teacher in Zimbabwe enhances risk on return. Finally, the Central Intelligence Organisation is responsible for monitoring returns to Harare airport.

Gherson has succeeded in an appeal on behalf of a victim of domestic violence who was refused Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK by the UK Border Agency.

Our client, who had arrived into the UK in 2007 on a two year probationary period spouse visa, started to experience domestic violence at the hands of her husband soon after arriving into the UK. The UK Border Agency refused to grant her application for Indefinite Leave to Remain on the basis that our client had failed to prove that domestic violence had taken place.

Gherson has succeeded in an appeal on behalf of an overseas domestic worker employed in the UK who was refused an extension of stay by the UK Border Agency. 

Our client had applied for an extension of stay in the United Kingdom as a domestic worker. He had worked for his employer in the UK since June 2004 and secured leave on this basis each year.  The UK Border Agency refused the application on the basis that the domestic worker was employed as a security guard and as such they did not believe the position fell within the definition of domestic work as set out in their guidance.  The appeal was heard in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal where the refusal was overturned. The Immigration Judge found that the domestic worker had continued to work for the same employer since arrival in June 2004, his role as a security guard had been his position throughout and the basis upon which the UK Border Agency had granted him entry and extended his leave on previous occasions. On this basis the Immigration Judge allowed the appeal. 

The Government has announced that as of 27 November 2008, both parties must be 21 years of age to apply for a marriage visa.  The increase from the current 18 years of age is an attempt by the Government to tackle forced marriages and reduce abuse of the current rules.      

In a landmark decision issued on 25 July 2008 the European Court of Justice’s Grand Chamber has found that the people married to or in a civil partnership with a citizen of the European Union (the “EU”), and who are not themselves EU citizens, must be allowed to remain in their spouse or partner’s home country.  

In YB (EEA reg 17(4) - proper approach) Ivory Coast [2008] UKAIT 00062 (13-08-2008) the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal considered the proper approach to be taken by the UKBA in considering an application for a residence card made by an extended family member of “an EEA national” (an national of one of the countries comprising the European Economic Area).  

On 30 July 2008 the House of Lords dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (on the application of Baiai and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2008] UKHL.  Mr Baiai and the other Claimants had successfully applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions to refuse to issue them with a Certificate of Approval, enabling them to get married in the United Kingdom.  As was reported on this site at the time the Court of Appeal in May of 2007 dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal against their successful applications for judicial review.  

The UK Borders Agency (the “UKBA”) yesterday  published a new policy in the light of the HSMP Forum’s successful application for judicial review of the changes to the qualifying criteria for extensions of leave to remain under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (“HSMP”). 

In B v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39 (one of four highly significant judgments issued by the House of Lords’ Appellate Committee on 25-6-2008) the issue was whether when somebody appeals against a decision to remove him or her from the UK and says that the decision violates his right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “ECHR”) – is the effect of his removal on other members of his family relevant to the question of whether the decision is contrary to Article 8?  

One of Gherson’s clients, a 10 year old girl living in Moscow and hoping to accompany her mother to the United Kingdom, has won her appeal against an Entry Clearance Officer’s (“ECO”) decision to refuse to allow her to come to the UK.  The ECO had refused the client’s application for entry clearance because he or she had not been satisfied that her mother had “sole responsibility” for the client’s upbringing.  The ECO has not sought to challenge the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s decision allowing the client’s appeal.