OUR 100% SUCCESS RATE

In the last five years1 our Immigration department has built up an incredible 100% success rate in respect of clients who followed our advice and were given a chance of success of more than 10%.

We set out below more detail in relation to this impeccable track record.

ONLY 4 APPLICATIONS HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED

During this five-year period, only four applications prepared by our department have eventually not succeeded. However, in two of these cases the clients decided not to challenge the refusal decisions; the third continued without further assistance from our department; and the fourth one was given a 10% chance of success from the beginning of the case. As can be seen below, these cases were extremely difficult but, despite being clearly advised of poor chances of success, the clients decided to instruct us to prepare their applications:

1. Entry clearance as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant (instructed in 2014)

This client and his wife had previously travelled to the USA as visitors. The wife hid her pregnancy and, once in the country, they applied for asylum. The application for asylum extended their stay until their child was born and granted the US citizenship by birth. They then left the country.

We clearly advised the client that his poor US immigration history, which was evident from his passport, might affect his credibility in respect of his application as an Entrepreneur. Consequently, following the submission of his application, the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) decided to interview the client. Unfortunately, his application was refused on the grounds that the ECO did not believe that he was a genuine entrepreneur. We advised the client that the refusal decision was unreasonable and, as there was no right of appeal, to challenge it by judicial review. However, the client decided not to proceed further.

2. Entry clearance as a visitor (instructed in 2015):

Prior to this client approaching us, the ECO had already refused his two previous applications for entry clearance. The first application that was refused was for entry clearance as an adult dependant relative in which the client had indicated that he intended to live in the UK permanently. The second application that was refused was for entry clearance as a visitor. This application was refused only 10 days before the client instructed us to urgently submit a fresh application as a visitor.

Following the refusal of a fresh application as a visitor, we advised the client that the refusal decision was irrational and, as there was no right of appeal, to challenge it by judicial review. However, the client decided not to proceed further.

3. Refugee family reunion (instructed in 2017):

Prior to this client approaching us, the ECO had already refused her two previous applications for refugee family reunion. Among other issues, the reasons for refusal included the accusations of submission of forged documents and false information. This led the ECO to ‘question the integrity of the application and your relationship with the sponsor’. Due to these accusations and the previous two refusals, we advised that a fresh application had poor prospects of success but, providing that the new application was fully and skilfully

prepared, should eventually succeed on appeal. As instructed, we prepared a fresh application dealing in detail with all relevant issues and the previous reasons for refusal. As anticipated, the ECO refused the application again. We advised the client to challenge the refusal and an appeal was lodged. The client then failed to contact us further. However, we subsequently learned that the client had received entry clearance.

(between 1 June 2014 and – 31 May 2019)

4. Naturalisation as a British citizen (instructed in 2017):

This client had long absences from the UK during the relevant period. His absences were well in excess of those allowed under the residence requirement and went beyond those that could be disregarded even if discretion was exercised. Consequently, the client was informed that the prospects of success in his application were poor and were estimated at no more than 10%. However, the client decided to proceed. Unfortunately, his application was refused.

| ALL OTHER APPLICATION SUCCEEDED

All other applications prepared by us and concluded during this five-year period were successful either at application stage or following an appeal. An appeal was necessary in four cases only, including two asylum ones.

| ALL APPEALS HAVE SUCCEEDED

All finally-determined appeals prepared and/or presented by us during this five-year period (whether or not the original application had been prepared by our Department) have been allowed.

Therefore, all our clients who have instructed us during this five-year period to prepare their applications have eventually succeeded with their claims and achieved their aims, providing that:

a) at the beginning of their case we estimated the chance of success at more than 10%; and

b) if their applications were refused, they followed our advice to challenge the refusal decisions.

This incredible 100% success rate over the last five years is mainly due to our Department’s thorough and diligent preparation of cases and our impeccable attention to detail.

Please note that our department does not only take on clients with straightforward cases. In total, almost half (i.e. 42.5%) of the clients who instructed us during this five-year period sought our assistance after their previous applications had been refused/rejected or as criminal/immigration offenders (e.g. overstayers, illegal entrants, those who obtained leave by false representations, etc.). Whilst such cases usually have less than 50% chance of success, we have still been able to prepare successful fresh applications for them or win their appeals. We will never refuse to take your case on, however poor the chances of success. However, we will clearly advise you of the prospects of success so that you can make an informed decision whether or not you wish to proceed.

| Our Recent Successes

Expert Advice

Vladimir Mikeljevic

PARTNER


T.  0113 297 3177
E.vladimir@levisolicitors.co.uk

Vladimir is a Level 3 (Immigration Law Advanced) Law Society accredited immigration solicitor.

Read More

| Expert Advice 

Sasha Williams

SOLICITOR


T.  0113 532 8686
E. swilliams@levisolicitors.co.uk

Sasha is a solicitor in our immigration team and specialises in both immigration and asylum law.

Read More