Appeals against decisions under the Immigration Rules. -
An acclaimed choreographer had submitted a Tier One Entrepreneur application which had been refused and appeal dismissed. He then instructed MAGNE &CO to prepare an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Permission to appeal was granted , but this appeal was also dismissed.
Our client then prepared a new Tier One entrepreneur application to be submitted within twenty eight days of the expiry of statutory extended permission to remain.
By this time the 2014 Immigration Act had come into force. This act removed the right of appeal to applications made under the Immigration Rules.
When he submitted the new application, we also asserted that our client’s established business constituted private life under the Human Rights Act, maintaining that any decision to remove would be a disproportionate interference with his right to a private life given that he met the requirements of the Immigration Rules.
The Tribunal accepted that a human rights claim had been made, and granted a right of appeal.
On appeal the Immigration Judge dismissed the case having ignored previous findings by the court in our client’s favour and failing to take into account a crucial letter.
Our client again went to the Upper Tribunal and the appeal was allowed. In so doing the Court held : -
• Running your own business constitutes a private life for the purposes of the Human Rights act.
• The second application had been properly made , and met the requirements to the Immigration Rules.
• There is only a notional weight to be given to the public interest in removing a person who meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules
The legal ramifications are discussed under the Practice Note : “ Appeals on the Immigration Rules under the 2014 Immigration Act.”
There are two very specific advantages, that a Solicitor advocate enjoys: -
Because MAGNE & CO are responsible for the case from beginning to end, we always prepare an application with the court in mind, just in case the Home Office refuse. In this instance a clear exposition of the Human Rights claim at the time of application , permitted the Tribunal to have jurisdiction on a matter which otherwise the government had sought to exclude from their scrutiny. This had to be anticipated from day one.
Because we had compiled the application , and ensured that the five hundred and seventy one pages of documents meet the seventy different rule requirements of the Tier One application we could clearly identify what the Judge had overlooked.