In a hard-fought legal battle, we successfully secured leave to remain for our client, a long-term resident and NHS pharmacist, after her initial application was rejected by the Home Office. Despite the original decision being made against her, we didn’t give up and continued to pursue the case through multiple levels of appeal. This culminated in a favourable outcome and human rights appeal victory that recognised the strength of our client’s ties to the UK.
Background
Our client had been living lawfully in the UK since the age of 9 and had built a life in the country, both professionally and personally. After being refused leave to remain in 2023, the Home Office argued that her absence from the UK exceeded the threshold of 540 days over the 10-year qualifying period, disqualifying her from the possibility of indefinite leave to remain. They claimed that her residence had not been continuous, largely due to absences, including an extended period during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, this is where the case took a different direction. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal, but we didn’t accept the decision. Recognising the significant impact of our client’s contributions to UK society and her exceptional circumstances—particularly surrounding her extended absence during the pandemic—we appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal. We argued that the judge had made an error in dismissing key aspects of the case, such as the reasons behind the absences and the overall depth of the appellant’s integration into life in the UK.
In the Upper Tribunal, we successfully argued that the appellant’s absence during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered exceptional. Travel restrictions had kept her outside of the UK for months, and we presented compelling evidence that this period of absence should not be held against her, as it was entirely beyond her control. The Upper Tribunal agreed, and the case was sent back for a new hearing.
Appeal Hearing
At the rehearing, we focused on the fact that our client had spent the majority of her life in the UK and had established a deeply rooted private life. We also highlighted her work as a pharmacist in the NHS, emphasizing the important role she played in the UK’s healthcare system. The refusal to grant her leave, we argued, would not only harm her personal well-being but also deprive the NHS of a highly qualified professional. The Tribunal accepted this line of reasoning, noting that our client had been a valued employee and had a strong professional and personal life in the UK.
Despite the Home Office’s initial stance that the appellant’s immigration history was precarious, the Tribunal recognised that her long period of lawful residence and her contributions to the NHS were significant factors in her favour.
We also addressed the balance between immigration control and human rights, ultimately making the case that, in this instance, the public interest in maintaining strict immigration rules was outweighed by the negative impact the refusal would have on the appellant’s life. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant’s personal and professional ties to the UK were exceptional and that it would be a harsh and disproportionate outcome to remove her.
The decision ultimately allowed our client to remain in the UK, reinforcing the principle that individual circumstances such as long-term residence, professional contributions, and the impact of exceptional events like the pandemic, must be carefully weighed in human rights cases. While the Home Office’s refusal was initially based on a strict application of the Immigration Rules, the Tribunal’s final decision acknowledged that the appellant’s situation merited a more compassionate approach.
Conclusion
This case is a clear example of the importance of persistence in immigration appeals. While the initial decision was a setback, our determination to challenge the ruling and present a well-supported case ultimately led to a successful outcome. It serves as a reminder that legal pathways exist to contest decisions that may fail to fully consider the human aspects of an individual’s life in the UK, particularly when they have made significant contributions to the community and society.
Through this victory, our client has not only been granted the opportunity to continue her life in the UK but has also contributed to reinforcing the principle that immigration decisions should consider the whole picture—the individual’s rights, their contributions, and the exceptional circumstances that may be at play. It was a long road, but in the end, justice was done.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
