uk immigration lawyers

A Foreign National Human Rights Appeal


The Appellant is a foreign national that we represented in an appeal before the First-Tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTT).

The Appellant was born in abroad but relocated to his mother’s country of origin when he was aged 3-4 with his mother. His mother thereafter brought him to the United Kingdom in October 2002 at the age of 12. It is not clear what visa the Appellant was issued in order for he and his mother to be granted entry to the United Kingdom.

The Appellant has lived in the United Kingdom since. During this time, he was able to graduate. However, in 2014, the Appellant’s mother had left the United Kingdom and he had lost contact with his father. In the meantime, the Appellant had also entered into a relationship with a British national in December 2010. The Appellant and his partner have been living together since 2015.

He therefore submitted in January 2014 and which was refused in March 2014. A second application was submitted and refused in February 2015. The Appellant subsequently instructed Reiss Edwards to assist him in a third application. This application was submitted on 7 January 2019. The Home Office refused the application for a third time on 6 June 2019. Summarily put, the Home Office’s conclusions were as follows-

  1. Immigration Status Requirement – the fact that the Appellant did not hold valid Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom at the time of his application.
  2. 1 – that there were no Insurmountable Obstacles preventing the Appellant’s partner from living with the Appellant in his country of origin.
  3. Private life – the Appellant had not lived in the United Kingdom for at least half of his life before he reached the age of 25 and that there were no reasons why he could not re-integrate into country of origin’s society.

However, upon Reiss Edwards’ opinion and advise, the Appellant appealed the impugned decision. As part of the Grounds of Appeal submitted to the FTT, Reiss Edwards pleaded the following grounds, inter alia-

  1. That the sole countervailing factor against the Appellant was his Immigration
  2. But for this countervailing factor, it is extremely likely that the Appellant would have been issued with a Partner visa based on his relationship.
  3. The Appellant’s partner, as someone without connections or ties to the Appellant’s country of origin and therefore the provisions of EX.1 had been met. In the alternative, it would be disproportionate for her to live in the Appellant’s country of origin on wider human rights principles.


The appeal was heard before Judge Davey on 5 December 2019. In a Determination promulgated on 13 January 2020, the Judge allowed the Appellant’s appeal.


The Judge accepted that the relationship between the Appellant and his partner was genuine and subsisting. It was also accepted that his partner’s income was sufficient to meet the Financial Requirement of £18,600 per annum.


The Judge also accepted that the Appellant was brought to the United Kingdom as a minor and that his mother did not honour her promise to regularise the Appellant’s immigration status in the United Kingdom before she left the United Kingdom.


Relating to the pertinent issue in the appeal – was it proportionate for the Appellant to leave the United Kingdom, the Judge concluded that it was not.


It was accepted that the Appellant and his partner would face significant obstacles to integration in his country of origin. This coupled with the fact that the Appellant, if he were to leave the United Kingdom to submit his Partner visa was extremely likely to be issued with the visa (documentation evidencing this fact was submitted as part of the trial bundle filed and served with the FTT and Home Office respectively) meant that it was disproportionate to either expect his partner to relocate with the Appellant to his country of origin simply for a period of months, nor for their relationship to be placed on ‘hold’ until the Appellant was issued with his visa.


With two previous refusals, the Appellant’s case was a very narrow one and unsurprisingly, one which needed to go to an appeal.

However, we were able to present a case despite the narrow issue using niche human rights principles to justify why the Appellant’s appeal should have been allowed notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant did not meet the requirements for a Partner visa in the first instance.

Ultimately, the Appellant’s case had not materially changed since he submitted his case in 2014. However, our Immigration solicitors were able to distinguish his case from the previous iterations of his application submitted by his previous legal representatives. We believe that this case is a prime example of our knowledge and expertise in human rights law which respectfully separates Reiss Edwards from our peers.



Some of our happy clients



530 Reviews



Copyright © 2020 Immigration Lawyers London