Review of year 2017-2018

We successfully represented several cases last year 2017 and this year 2018 before the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC) at Sheldon Court, Birmingham and Newport and Hatton Cross. These cases are;

A) The right to entry to the United Kingdom and the "marriage of convenience"
B) Spouses of an EEA citizen [that has not been residing in the UK for the 5 years qualifying period of time]
C) Victim of Domestic Violence
D) Marriage of convenience (UK)
E) Appendix FM and Appendix FM SE

The case of Pathan & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA 2103
The Court of Appeal reminds us, once again, of the rigidity and inflexibility of the Points Based System. It is also a good reminder of the purpose and policy behind the Tier 2 visa route. Sponsor licence revoked while visa application pending The appellants had both made applications for leave to remain in the UK as Tier 2 (General) Migrants.
One of the requirements for such applications is to have a valid certificate of sponsorship from a company which has a Tier 2 sponsor licence. If the sponsor’s licence is revoked, then the application is doom to fail.

TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 (17 May 2018)
These appeals were heard after the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Agyarko) [2017] UKSC 11(see here) which made it clear that the scheme established by the overhauled Immigration Rules and associated instructions was lawful and compatible with article 8 of the ECHR. Overall, Agyarko not only entitles the Home Office to lawfully apply a test of insurmountable obstacles to the relocation of the family within the rules, it also permits the application of a test of exceptional circumstances outside the rules. In the present judgment the Court of Appeal held that while the courts are able to review the compatibility of the balance of factors that the executive strikes in devising the rules, the judiciary must nonetheless remember that the constitutional responsibility for policy lies with the executive and the fact that the rules are not and are not intended to summarise the Strasbourg jurisprudence.