• +44 (0)20 3411 1261
  • info@visaandmigration.com
uk visa enquiry
UK Visa
 /   /  UK Visa Refusals and Appeals

Get In Touch



Services

Testimonial

Approvals

See All
OISC

UK Visa Refusals and Appeals


Do you need to apply for a UK Visa Refusals and Appeals?
Speak to our experts to find out about our fast, friendly and affordable service

Is your UK visa Refused ?- 

  • Visitor Visa - If you have been refused a visitor visa you cannot appeal unless you have made an application as a Family Visitor - In all other cases applicants should reapply;
  • Entry Clearance as a Spouse/Fiance - You can appeal against the decision but in most of the cases its faster to apply for another application to get the visa;
  • Leave to Remain application - You may have right of appeal depending upon when you made the application;
  • Point based system Refusal - You will have a right to lodge an Administrative Refusal; 

If you have been refused and there is no right of appeal you may be able to lodge a Judicial Review.

There has been 19% increase in refusal of UK Visas since the changes to the Immigration rules in 2012. The Immigration rules have been made much stricter and tougher. However most of the refusals can be overturned by making a new application or by appealing the decision to refuse. 
The right of appeal is generally granted under the section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.If you have made an application to settle in the UK and have not submitted required evidence to satisfy the Entry Clearance Officer or the Secretary of State, due to which your application is refused, you can appeal and submit the new evidence, however you may need to prove that the evidence was available on the day of decision and had it been asked for it would have been provided. But sometimes the judges at the tribunal may refuse to accept the evidence; this is where a good advocacy works to convince the judges to accept the evidence. 
If you have been refused a Tier1, 2, 4 and 5 visa then you will be given right to administrative review and if your decision is still not overturned then you will have right to judicial review. However you cannot submit any new evidence at the time of administrative review unless the refusal is based on the reason that the documents submitted with the application are not genuine.From our experience we have observed that a significant number of applicants face the refusal due to fault/error or omission of the Entry Clearance Officer or The Secretary of State not considering the documents provided or are refused on the balance of probabilities. We generally encourage our clients to always appeal against their decisions being refused on the balance of probabilities, but it is important to note that there is no right of appeal against the visitor visas, except of the grounds of Human Right. However mostly we advise our client to submit a new application for visitor visa, as the same is more cost effective.

Our Appeal Advisors


Before we are able to advise you on the refusal of your case we need to review the reasons of refusal or notice of decision letter, which you can send us via email to  info@visaandmigration.comIt is important to note that if a new application is submitted to the Entry Clearance Officer or to the Secretary of state you will have to declare your first refusal or any subsequent refusals in all other applications and at times it can be treated as having a negative effect on all your future applications, you will also be required to counter the reasons of your refusal in your next applications and this is where good representations from us can help you.

Time Frames


28 days from outside the UK

14 days from inside the UK

14 days for administrative review inside the UK

28 days for administrative review outside the UK

 Detained fast track 2 working days

Appeal to Upper Tribunal – 14 days 

Appeals can also be submitted out of time; however you will need to provide a reasonable explanation to the Learned Tribunal why the delay was there to submit the appeal.

Benefits of an UK Immigration Appeal:


You have the chance of explaining your circumstances to a judge in person unless you choose to do a paper appeal. During an oral appeal it is always important to choose a good representative with experience and great advocacy skills, for which we can help you.

Determination of Appeal


The determination of an appeal is sent by the court by post with either stating appeal allowed or dismissed. If appeal is allowed this means you have won the case and if dismissed it means you have lost your case.

Both you and the Home Office presenting officers unit can appeal the decision of the tribunal.

Appeals Under Article 8 of ECHR: Right of Private & Family life


  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The maintenance requirements of E-LTRP.3.1-3.2 stand, although Blake J in R (on the application of MM)  v Secretary of State for the Home Department said that they could constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the ability of spouses to live together; he suggested that an appropriate figure may be around £13,400, and highlighted the position of young people and low wage earners caught by the higher figure in the rules;

After applying the requirements of the Rules, only if there may be arguably good grounds for granting leave to remain outside them is it necessary for Article 8 purposes to go on to consider whether there are compelling circumstances not sufficiently recognised under them: R (on the application of) Nagre v Secretary of State for the Home Department; the term “insurmountable obstacles” in provisions such as Section EX.1 are not obstacles which are impossible to surmount: MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria ; Izuazu (Article 8 – new rules) ; they concern the practical possibilities of relocation. In the absence of such insurmountable obstacles, it is necessary to show other non-standard and particular features demonstrating that removal will be unjustifiably harsh: Nagre.The Secretary of State addressed the Article 8 family aspects of the respondent’s position through the Rules, in particular EX1, and the private life aspects through paragraph 276ADE. The judge should have done likewise, also paying attention to the Guidance. Thus the judge should have considered the Secretary of State’s conclusion under EX.1 that there were no insurmountable obstacles preventing the continuation of the family life outside the UK. Only if there were arguably good grounds for granting leave to remain outside the rules was it necessary for him for Article 8 purposes to go on to consider whether there were compelling circumstances not sufficiently recognised under the Rules

There have been two interesting recent cases on Article 8.The most recent and far and away most important is SS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 388, handed down yesterday. The Court of Appeal holds that the now withdrawn seven year children policy, DP5/96, applied to British citizens as much as to foreign nationals. One might have thought it was an obvious point, as it would be surprising if the position of foreign national children was in law better than that of British citizen children. The Court reiterates the point made in AF (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 240, that the policy is a powerful factor to be taken into account in relevant cases.

Article 8 - 9 July 2012 immigration changes (HC 194)


  • MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC), 31 October 2012
  • MS, Re Judicial Review [2013] CSOH 1, 9 January 2013
  • Ogundimu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 60 (IAC), 28 January 2013
  • Izuazu (Article 8 – new rules) [2013] UKUT 00045 (IAC), 29 January 2013
  • Nagre, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin), 28 March 2013

Article 8 cases (pre 2012 changes)


  • NF (Ghana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 906
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719
  • Delay and Article 8
  • Strbac & Anr v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 84
  • Akaeke v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 947
  • EB (Kosovo) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41
  • Scope of Article 8

Defining what falls within scope of physical and moral integrity; private and family life, etc


  • AG (Eritrea) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 801: “…while an interference with private or family life must be real if it is to engage art. 8(1), the threshold of engagement (the “minimum level”) is not a specially high one.”
  • MA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (a.k.a. Afshar v Secretary of State for the Home Department) [2006] EWCA Civ 1440
  • MT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 455

  • MS (Ivory Coast) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 133

  • RO (India) v Entry Clearance Officer [2008] EWCA Civ 1525

  • ZB (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 834

  • MM (Tier 1 PSW; Art 8; “private life”) Zimbabwe [2009] UKAIT 00037

  • Maslov v Austria [2009] INLR 47

  • Patel, Modha & Odera v. ECO (Mumbai) [2010] EWCA Civ 17

  • HK (Turkey) v. SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 583

  • Ogundimu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 60 (IAC

Article 8 and Proportionality:


  • AB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1302
  • Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11
  • AG (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 801
  • Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39
  • Chikwamba (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 40
  • TG (Central African Republic) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 997
  • RU (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1551
  • VW (Uganda) and AB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 5
  • Valentin Batista v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 896
  • QJ (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1478
  • Mumu (paragraph 320; Article 8; scope) [2012] UKUT 00143 (IAC)
  • Proportionality and Article 8: removal cases
  • R (Razgar) v. Sectretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27
  • Chengjie Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 75
  • N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 414
  • E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 835
  • U v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 938
  • RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (a.k.a. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department) [2006] EWCA Civ 1144VW (Uganda) and AB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 5

Deportation Proportionality and Article 8: 


  • Boultif v Switzerland (2001) 33 EHRR 50
  • Uner v Netherlands [2007] INLR 273
  • AB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1302
  • AF (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 240
  • DS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 544
  • AR (Pakistan) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 816
  • HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322
  • JO (Uganda) JT (Ivory Coast) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 10
  • KB (Trinidad and Tobago) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 11
  • HK (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 583
  • Nunez v  Norway (App no. 55597/09) [2011] ECHR 1047
  • Butt v Norway (App no. 47017/09), 4 December 2012
  • Antwi and Others v Norway (App no. 26940/10) 14 February 2012
  • AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1634
  • Sanade and others (British children – Zambrano – Dereci) [2012] UKUT 48(IAC)

Right to Health Proportionality and Article 8: 


  • AJ (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1736
  • AE (Ivory Coast) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 1509
  • JA (Ivory Coast) and ES (Tanzania) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1353
  • RS (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 839
  • BL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 855
  • DM (Zambia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 474
  • Entry Clearance Officer, Mumbai v NH (India) [2007] EWCA Civ 1330
  • R (on the application of Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 840

Article 8 International law:


  • AR (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 816
  • ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4
  • Article 8 and vulnerable minors
  • CL (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1551
  • BL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 855
  • EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64
  • MK (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1453

Article 8 and Best Interests of the Child (s.55, Borders and Citizenship Act 2009)


  • MK (best interests of child) India [2011] UKUT 00475 (IAC)
  • AJ (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1191
  • LD (Article 8-best interests of child) Zimbabwe v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKUT 278 (IAC)
  • ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 AC 16
  • E-A (Article 8 – best interests of child) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00315 (IAC)
  • EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC)
  • D Lee v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 348
  • R (on the application of Tinizary) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1850 (Admin)
  • Omotunde (best interests – Zambrano applied – Razgar) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 247 (IAC)
  • Tologiwa v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2386 (Admin)
  • Z, Re Judicial Review [2012] CSIH 87
  • R (on the application of OA) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] EWHC 3128 (Admin)
  • HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25
  • AC v Polish Judicial Authority [2012] EWHC 3201 (Admin)
  • SG (child of a polygamous marriage) Nepal [2012] UKUT 265 (IAC) [2012] Imm AR 939
  • Azimi-Moayed and others (decisions affecting children; onward appeals) Iran (Rev 1) [2013] UKUT 197 (IAC) (26 April 2013)
  • SM & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin) (08 May 2013)
  • Mundeba (s.55 and para 297(i)(f)) Democratic Republic of Congo [2013] UKUT 00088 (IAC)
  • LH (Nigeria) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 26
  • SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 550 (22 May 2013) 

Interaction of family and immigration proceedings


  • MS (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 133
  • Mohan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1363
  • RS (immigration and family court proceedings) India [2012] UKUT 00218 (IAC)
  • Nimako-Boateng (residence orders – Anton considered) [2012] UKUT 00216 (IAC)
  • RS (immigration/family court liaison: outcome) [2013] UKUT 00082 (IAC)

Article 8 cases Evidence


  • VW (Uganda) and AB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 5
  • AR (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 816
  • AJ (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1736
  • AE (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1509
  • N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1166

What we can do for you - 

Immigration applications to the UKBA, including human rights applications and concessionary or discretionary applications • applications Outside the rules • representing clients in correspondence with the UKBA and at UKBA interviews • representations to the UKBA in support of cases • drafting client statements • submitting One-Stop Notices • lodging notices of appeal and statements of additional grounds • applications for temporary admission and Chief Immigration Officer’s bail • representations regarding ongoing immigration casework to MPs • instructing a barrister or advocate for advice and to advise on drafting appropriate grounds of appeal (where permitted by the Bar Council).

 


Do you need to apply for a UK Visa Refusals and Appeals?
Speak to our experts to find out about our fast, friendly and affordable service

Get In Touch



Services

Testimonial

Approvals

See All
OISC
We specialise exclusively in UK Immigration and Nationality Law. We are regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner(OISC). We provide immigration services to clients from worldwide. Immigration law is complex and with the rules constantly changing we strongly recommend that you use specialists to support and represent you from the start. Call us now for an honest opinion of your case, possible costs and options.

Quick links

Visaandmigration.com

The Lansdowne Building, 2 Lansdowne Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR9 2ER
+44 (0)20 3411 1261
+44 (0)20 3761 1901
info@visaandmigration.com

India Office:
E501 Jagaran Apartments, Dwarka Sector 22, New Delhi, India
09311964480

Newsletter