UK Visa Appeal For Refusals | UK SettlementVisa Appeal Process Time!

Has your UK visa been refused or are you looking to appeal a UK visa decision?

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. Depending on the type of UK visa you applied for, the appeals process differs:

• 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 re-apply.

• Entry clearance as a spouse or fiance - You can appeal against decisions about spouse visas but - in most of the cases - it’s faster to make another application to get the visa.

• Leave to remain - You may have a right of appeal against leave to remain applications depending upon when you made the application.

• Point-based system - You will have a right to lodge an Administrative Review. If you have been refused and there is no right of appeal, you may be able to lodge a Judicial Review.

• UK Settlement Visa Appeal - If your child or an adult dependent relative is refused a Indefinite leave to Enter the UK then you can appeal against the Decision.

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 the required evidence to satisfy the Entry Clearance Officer or the Secretary of State and your application is then 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. 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 Tier 1, 2, 4 or 5 visa, then you will be given the right to administrative review, and - if the decision is still not overturned - then you will have the 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, a significant number of applicants face refusal due to fault, error, or the Entry Clearance Officer or Secretary of State not considering the documents provided. 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 on the grounds of Human Rights. Generally UK Settlement Visa Appeals are also raised on Human RIght Grounds. 

Our Appeal Advisors

Before we are able to advise you on the refusal of your case, we need to review the reasons for refusal or notice of the decision letter, which you can send us via email. It 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 - this can have a negative effect on all your future applications. You will also be required to counter the reasons for your refusal in any future applications.

Time Frames

There are certain time limits that are adhered to when appealing a UK visa refusal decision:

• 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

• 2 working days for detained fast track

• 14 days for appeal to Upper Tribunal

Appeals can also be submitted out of time. However, you will need to provide a reasonable explanation to the Learned Tribunal why the delay occurred.

Benefits of a UK Visa Appeal

The main benefit is that you have the chance to explain 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.

Determination of Appeal

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

Previous Cases

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

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

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

How We Can Help Your UK Visa Appeal

As UK visa and immigration specialists, we can make applications to the UKBA, including human rights applications and concessionary or discretionary applications, on your behalf. We can also make applications outside the rules. We represent clients with regard to their correspondence with the UKBA and at UKBA interviews, drafting client statements, submitting one-stop notices and lodging notices of appeal and statements of additional grounds. In additions, we can make applications for temporary admission and Chief Immigration Officer’s bail, as well as instructing a barrister or advocate for advice and advising on drafting appropriate grounds of appeal (where permitted by the Bar Council).