This a success story of our client whose leave to remain application was refused. Reiss Edwards challenged the decision of the home office based on the appeal grounds of human rights Read more
The Appellant entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 1 November 2011 and had lived in the United Kingdom without valid Leave since. He entered into a relationship with a British national, during a period of time in which he did not have extant Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. An application seeking Leave to Remain as the Partner or Spouse of a British national (as regulated by Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules) was submitted and refused by the Home Office for the following reasons-
Reiss Edwards represented the Appellant in his appeal challenging the impugned decision. The Grounds generally pleaded-
The appeal went before the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘FTT’) and allowed by the Judge on the day.
The Judge found without hesitation that the Appellant and his partner were in a genuine and subsisting relationship and that the documents relied on by the Appellant proved that he had cohabited with his partner for at least 2 years.
The Judge further found that with respects to EX.1, the background country evidence did in fact support the Appellant’s claim that both the safety of the Appellant and his partner would be at real risk of harm in the event that they lived together in his country of origin. The Judge accepted the submission raised by Reiss Edwards that the risk to safety when raised within the ambit of a human rights appeal did not need to treated as an asylum claim. The issue germane to the appeal was whether or not the risk of harm was sufficiently high as to amount to an Insurmountable Obstacle. Questions of whether or not the Appellant or his partner could engage the assistance and protection of the authorities and other fundamental asylum principles were not relevant within a human rights appeal.
This particular finding is one which our immigration solicitors is particularly proud of, as it goes against the Home Office’s long-standing position that any claim of harm should not be considered within the sphere of human rights but exclusively be considered as part of an asylum claim.
