| An impressive 9-year record of success

We have analysed Vladimir’s success rate in respect of the clients who have instructed him and whose cases have been completed during the nine-year period between 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2021. We note the following (as of 1 July 2021):

During this nine-year period, only five applications prepared by Vladimir have eventually not succeeded; however, in two of these cases the clients decided not to challenge the refusal decisions, the third one proceeded without Vladimir’s further assistance, while the last two were given not more than a 10%-15% chance of success from the beginning of the case. The first case relates to an application for entry clearance as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant, the second one to an application for entry clearance as a visitor, the third one to refugee family reunion, the fourth one to an application for naturalisation as a British citizen, and the fifth one to a Private Life: medical health 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 Vladimir to prepare their applications:

(i) 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. Vladimir 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. Vladimir 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.

(ii) Entry clearance as a visitor (instructed in 2015):

Prior to this client approaching Vladimir, the Entry Clearance Officer 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 Vladimir to urgently submit a fresh application as a visitor. Following the refusal of a fresh application as a visitor, Vladimir 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.

(iii) Refugee family reunion (instructed in 2017):

Prior to this client approaching Vladimir, the Entry Clearance Officer (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, which 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, Vladimir 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, Vladimir 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. Vladimir advised the client to challenge the refusal and an appeal was lodged. The client then failed to contact Vladimir further. However, Vladimir subsequently learned that the client had received entry clearance.

(iv) 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, Vladimir informed the client 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.

(v) Private Life: medical health case (instructed in 2018):

This client had already been illegally in the UK for more than 10 years and had already made two unsuccessful applications before approaching Vladimir with a view to making a fresh application. Vladimir discussed the client’s medical evidence and estimated that the client’s fresh application had no more than 15% chance of success. Nevertheless, the client decided to instruct Vladimir. Unfortunately, the application was unsuccessful.

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

All but one of the finally-determined appeals prepared and/or presented by Vladimir during this nine-year period (whether or not the original application had been prepared by Vladimir) have been allowed.

| 100% Success rate

Therefore, all Vladimir’s clients who have instructed him during this nine-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 Vladimir estimated the chance of success at more than 15%; and b) if their applications were refused, they followed Vladimir’s advice to challenge the refusal decisions. This incredible 100% success rate over the last nine years (between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2021) in respect of clients who followed Vladimir’s advice and were given a chance of success of more than 15% is mainly due to Vladimir’s thorough and diligent preparation of cases and his impeccable attention to detail.

Please note that Vladimir does not only take on clients with straightforward cases. This is evident from the cases mentioned above where Vladimir was instructed after previous refusals and where the chances of success were poor. In total, almost half (i.e. 47.29%) of the clients who instructed Vladimir during this nine-year period sought his 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, Vladimir has still been able to prepare successful fresh applications for them or win their appeals. Vladimir will never refuse to take your case on, however poor the chances of success. However, he 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

Vladimir Mikeljevic


T.  0113 297 3177

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

Read More

| Expert Advice