COVID-19 SERVICE UPDATE: Our services remain fully operational with video conferencing and remote working allowing us to offer an uninterrupted and high-quality service.
✔ Call on 0203 744 2797, email email@example.com or use our website chat tool from Monday - Friday 9:00am to 5:30pm. Qualified and knowledgeable lawyers will answer your queries.
On 16th January 2020, the Home Office issued new guidance for UK Visas and Immigration caseworkers assessing Tier 1 (General) ILR applications, entitled 'False representation: Tier 1 (General) earnings conerns'. The new information is intended to be used with the existing fasle representation guidance, which was released in Autumn 2019.
Section 322 (5) of the Immigration Rules (part 9: grounds for refusal) outlines grounds for the rejection of leave to remain or variation of leave to enter or remain in the UK. It states, "the undesirability of permitting the person concerned to remain in the United Kingdom in the light of his conduct (including convictions which do not fall within paragraph 322(1C), character or associations or the fact that he represents a threat to national security". As of November 2018, according to (then) Minister for Immigration, Caroline Noakes, nearly 1,700 applications had been refused on the basis of section 322(5). Of these, 1,490 had discrepancies between earnings declared to the Home Office and those on HMRC records.
The case of Balajigari v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 673 in April 2019 was significant in that it challenged a number of refusals by the Home Office on the basis of Section 322 (5) earnings discrepancies. It was concluded by the Court of Appeal that "the approach taken by the Secretary of State in deciding to refuse the applications for leave to remain in each of these cases on paragraph 322 (5) grounds - which we take to have been his general approach in all earnings discrepancy cases - was legally flawed". They reached this conclusion because the Home Office had proceeded immediately from the discovery of discrepancies to a decision that dishonesty had occurred. As such, the applicants had not been given an opportunity to provide an innocent reason for the discrepancy.
As a result of this ruling by the Court of Appeal, the Home Office published the October guidance, which some senior immigration law commentators considered to be an overly narrow interpretation of the conclusion reached. The October guidance introduced a new "Minded to Refuse notification" (MTR) procedure (i.e. notification that the application may be refused on the grounds of false representation). On face value this was a positive move as it allows the applicant to explain the reason for any financial discrepancy. However, the guidance imposes conditions on this new notification, including that "The applicant may not necessarily know about the information you have considered or its significance, for example information obtained directly from another Government Department".
The new guidance expands on the use of MTR letters, and the considerations which must be made before one is issued. The broad process outlined is as follows:
In some cases, Home Office officials have provided questionnaires to clarify earnings and tax returns (as opposed to formal MTR letters), but the new guidance clarifies that these cannot be used in lieu of MTR letters. In such circumstances, MTR letters will need to be sent in accordance with the process above.
According to the guidance, some of the factors which should be taken into account by case officers when considering applications include:
If there is reason to conclude that discrepancy occurred as a result of an innocent mistake, the new guidance states the case can be granted immediately.
It is also made clear that the Case Officer must provide unambiguous reasoning for their concerns within the MTR; "you must explain your concerns unambiguously to the applicant, to ensure they understand them and have a fair chance to respond".
Responses to MTR letters from applicants must show that 'on the balance of probability' any concerns raised have been addressed with "full, particularised and convincing explanation, and evidence where possible". As such, assertions made by the applicant will be disregarded. The guidance also makes it very clear that if there is any evidence that the response made appears to be a 'stock answer', or that it doesn't seem to have been written specifically for the application in hand, there will be strong grounds for refusal.
If any element of clarification requested in the MTR is not provided by the applicant, no further clarification needs to be sought in writing by the Case Officer; "If something is missing, you should check whether the applicant has responded to all the questions in the MTR letter and can have reasonably been expected to have provided it. You do not need to write out again for anything further providing the MTR letter was clear".
While it is positive that Tier 1 (General) settlement applicants will have a right to provide an explanation if there is a discrepancy between the income declared in their application and the income stated on their tax return, there remains a strong element of uncertainty that the application will be granted even if an MTR is issued. Even if the applicant is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, if the Case Officer is not entirely convinced by the answer/s given, or something is missing, the application may be refused. As ever, it pays to be extremely diligent in your original application, and if problems do arise, seek the advice of an experienced immigration law professional who can help you navigate the increasingly complex rules and guidance being issued by the Home Office
It's a shame that you dont have an 'Excellent' star rating on here, as my experience with Reiss Edwards is nothing short of an excellent rating. They handled my application for an Indefinite Leave to remain in April 2014 and did my husband's one very recently including my daughter. Every time i have approached them, they have continued to treat me with courtesy, respect and patience. Amar was indeed a very thorough and professional gentleman. He is very knowledgeable, corporative and engaging. He responded to my emails, calls and enquiries promptly. He was always reassuring. I could not have asked for a better Immigration service. I would recommend them over and over again for anyone looking for an immigration advice. They gave me a free immigration advice when i called them, and the quality of the advice was something other charge thousands for. If you need a particular, name, Amar would be it. He exemplifies, for me, the true, professional gentleman. He is a valuable asset to Reiss Edwards.
I am glad that i instructed Reiss Edwards on my visa matter. It started with a 20 minutes free immigration advice. I met with Amar to discuss my ILR refusal. He gave me a great deal of quality advice and decided to take on my messy case. I had doubts on the merits of my case by he was relatively convinced he could win it. That made me quite secure. To be honest, things did not start as quick as I would have wanted, but they kept on communicating the process and state of things to me.A big thank you to Verusha and Foram. They were also very helpful. Brilliant and informative. Their fee was fair and reasonable, especially if you compare them to other law firms and immigration law firms in London; some of whom even told me that i would not be able to get an indefinte leave to remain in this country. The process was long but was worth it. In the end, a big thank you to Reiss Edwards.
Investing over 2 million pounds is defintely not a routine decision. We had to make sure that the Tier 1 investor immigration lawyers that we'd be picking has to be one of the best within the Tier 1 investor category. We contacted Reiss Edwards and they were able to get us not only the Tier 1 investor visa but also suggested profitable investment portfolios in addition to what we already had in mind.
TI have just had British Citizenship application approved. Prior to making the application, i was not sure which law firm i should hire to facilitate the paperwork. After a few hours of research, i decided to go with Reiss Edwards and i must confess that i wasnt disappointed. The immigration lawyers at Reiss Edwards handled my case well and they really knew what they were doing. They were fully aware of what documents I needed and it was easy for them to tell if my case was going to be easy or not. At the end of the day, I have not received my British citizenship within 3 months. If anyone is looking for a good immigration lawyer to handle thier case, contact Reiss Edwards.
My wife's spouse visa extension application was refused by the Home Office and they gave her 14 days to leave the country. We contacted Reiss Edwards and they said "OK don't worry we will sort this out". They put together the list of documents for me to obtain and they prepared a bundle which was as thick as the printer it came out from.We followed everything they asked us to do and in the end we won our appeal and got our spouse visa. We can't recommend them enough and we have promised ourselves never to make any more UK visa applications without them.
The team of lawyers at Reiss Edwards are very professional and friendly people. Their experience in and around UK immigration law is quite extensive; be sure that you application is in safe and competent hands. My immigration matter was an indefinite leave to remain application based on Tier 1 on a self-employment basis. The immigration lawyers at Reiss Edwards made sure that the application was perfect and ready to be accepted. I got a positive decision and I recommend them highly for anyone who needs a UK immigration help.
I contacted Reiss Edwards to help me with my wife's UK settlement visa. They acted with utmost professionalism throughout the entire application. I spoke with Joe Dinh, he is an immigration solicitor and he is one of the best solicitors out there. He ensured that there was little to no room for error. At some point I thought he was over cautious. He remained calmed and continued to assure us on our immigration matter. Most people in his position would have panicked but he was calmed and continued to assure us. We received out positive outcome very quickly.
I have been using Reiss Edwards for three years now for my family's immigration application. Both for my initial application and extension. They are really affordable. The team of solicitors at this firm are probably one of the most efficient and economical in terms of cost. They offered free advice over the phone and spent good time with us before inviting us for consultation.
Reiss Edwards is a top notch immigration service company. The way they handled our documentation and also the list of documents they sent was efficient and top quality. They helped us professionally throughout the process. We are very happy with the immigration advice we received from the team. We highly recommend them.
I used Reiss Edwards immigration lawyers to assist with my immigration matter and that of my family. It was an EX1 application. They dealt with the matter properly and even when complications were coming up from the Home Office, they helped resolve the issue properly. They are very professional and are very popular in London. I am happy to have worked with them.
This is the only firm that i spoke with that didn't ask for money before listening to me, will be using them again.
I used Reiss Edwards for my Tier 2 visa application and it was successful. The team was ever present and happy to answer my question. The caseworker that dealing with my case went on holiday yet by case did not suffer one bit. Another lawyer stepped and took over the case without any hassle.
My Tier 1 Investor Visa was dealt with quickly and without issue. Would recommend Reiss Edwards as an Immigration law firm in London. Thank you to the team.
530 ReviewsREAD ALL REVIEWS