In August 2022, Alexandra Pease and Alex Papasotiriou, working together with our team of legal associates, assisted a client who had been without leave since 2014, and who had been unsuccessful in regularising his stay, to secure 30 months/2.5 years leave to remain on the private life route, placing him on a 10-year route to settlement.
In November 2021, our client, a 32 year old Bangladeshi citizen, made a private life application in order to remain in the UK, on the basis of his close family support network in the UK and the circumstances he faced on return. Our client entered the UK in August 2006 with valid entry clearance. He regularised his stay until 2013 at which point a further application was refused and an in-time appeal dismissed. This meant that his leave extended under section 3C came to an end in 2014. Subsequently, our client made many attempts to regularise his stay before he instructed us and we were able to assist. His attempts started with a voided student application and, by the time he approached us, he had made six unsuccessful applications for leave to remain based on his private and family life and one failed EEA residence card application.
A New Family and Private Life Application
We assisted our client to make a fresh application for leave to remain based on his family and private life in the UK and he was initially granted six months leave outside of the rules. This was the breakthrough we needed and this allowed us to make a further in-time application before the expiry of his leave, which was subsequently successful and resulted in a grant of leave for 30 months.
How We Helped Our Client
As can be seen from the above summary, at the point when our client approached us, he had an adverse immigration history. Upon analysing his file and previous applications, we identified a number of areas of argument we could develop. We worked to substantiate the arguments with detailed documentary and expert evidence, always considering the hurdle of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.
We started the process with detailed witness statements from his close family who provided him with support in the UK and could provide a comprehensive account of the circumstances that he risked facing in Bangladesh. Through the witness statements and documentary evidence we were able to demonstrate that the family relationships went above and beyond the usual emotional ties between adult relatives and we could rely on the impact his removal would have on the UK-based family as well as on our client himself. We ensured that the impact set out in the witness statements was supported and corroborated by a wide range of documentary evidence to substantiate the witness evidence and bring the case together.
This case involved our client's close bond with two young children and we therefore commissioned an expert independent social workers report to assess the relationship, dependence and impact on the children should our client have been required to leave, thus allowing us to argue their best interests were not served by his removal. The report was supported with school letters, reports and other evidence of the close bond.
Our client struggled with his mental health and we instructed an independent psychiatrist to assess him and provide a detailed analysis of the impact of his return to Bangladesh on our client's health and wellbeing, addressing in particular his ability to cope as part of the 'very significant obstacles to integration' test.
The Decision of the Home Office
UKVI accepted the arguments advanced and, happily, our client was granted 30 months/2.5 years leave to remain on the private life route, placing him on a 10-year route to settlement.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.