Detained Due To Lack Of Immigration Status
- Personal Immigration
Issues Client Faced
- Foreign national setting up a business in the UK
- Entrepreneur Visa
- Definition of human rights
Mr M is a Bangladeshi national who arrived in the UK on 6 February 2010 in order to study in this country. During the course of his studies he decided to submit his own application for an Entrepreneur Visa as he wanted to start his own business in the UK. Unfortunately, this application was refused and his appeal dismissed.
Mr M submitted a further application for a student visa that was also refused and Mr M was informed that the Home Office considered that he had used deception when siting his TOEIC test. Many of our clients faced this allegation and our Firm is involved in litigation in connection with his matter.
Mr M was detained due to his lack of immigration status and he was very frustrated as he had invested a large amount of money in studying in this country and he was now facing removal plus being detained in an Immigration Removal Centre.
Mr M explained to the Home Office while in detention that he was also in fear of returning to his country for a reason under the Refugee Convention. The Home Office refused to consider his asylum claim without giving him the right to appeal. Furthermore, Removal Directions were set for his removal to Bangladesh.
Mr M instructed us to represent him and an appeal was lodged to the First-tier Tribunal under the current Immigration (IA) Act 2014. This Act introduced dramatic changes in the appeal system, many of which are the subject of litigation. One of the issues under challenge is the definition of human rights claim [see R (on the application of Waqar) v SSHD (statutory appeals/paragraph 3536) IJR UKUT 00169 (IAC)].
Since Mr M had previously argued human rights in his applications, the Home Office treated his asylum claim as further representations. The Home Office concluded that his representations did not create a realistic prospect of success and for this reason, his case was refused without a right of appeal.
However, we disagreed with this position as the IA 2014 states that a decision to refuse a human rights claim attracts an in-country right of appeal. On that basis, Mr M’s appeal was lodged and we successfully obtained a preliminary decision from the Immigration Judge confirming our approach to the IA and listing Mr M’s appeal for a hearing.
The immediate consequence of this was that Mr M’s Removal Directions were cancelled and he was released from detention.
Immigration and Asylum law is a constant changing field where knowledge of the law is as important as years of experience. Mr M’s case is not an isolated case where an educated person tries his best to comply with the Immigration Rules/Acts and fails due to lack of clarity of the same.
We were very pleased to be able to obtain a good result for Mr M and we are looking forward to continued successes.