It won’t be wrong to suggest that today’s judgement brought relief and joy on plenty of immigrants faces who have been fighting to plead innocence since the Home Office misapplied the abovementioned paragraph in deciding their cases. The immigrant who faced removal from the UK were predominantly professional people in that Doctors, Lawyers, IT, Nurses and many more. I have already defended ample applicants and always advocated that the interpretation of the Para 322(5)
by the Home Office was draconian and legally flawed.
As such in the determination by Justice Underhill sitting at the Court of Appeal, four Paragraph 322(5) cases were allowed. In the cases of Ashish Balajigari, Avais Kawos, Somnath Majumder and Amor Albert, the Court of Appeal has finally made a positive verdict on a gloomy area of law, that the Home Office has been punishing innocent Migrants within recent years.
Sanity has prevailed as the Court of Appeal have ruled stating that the Home Office may have been misapplying Paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules and it ‘may be being used for a purpose it was not intended.’ The Court of Appeal also stated that the Home Office’s approach in deciding to refuse the cases was ‘legally flawed.’ This is a great victory for former Tier 1 (general) applicants’
who have been refused settlement in the UK, after the Home Office draconian policy pertaining to tax amendments.
As a result of this ground breaking Judgment, anyone who has a Paragraph 322(5) refusal or anyone who has an ongoing matter, may now be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and this determination will go a long way in helping them to secure their leave in the UK.
From the above judgement in particular concluding remarks of the court wherein court expressed view that applicants private and/or family life in the UK which is protected by Art 8 of ECHR will be perturbed and interfered by the consequences of Home Office Refusal in the absence of establishing dishonesty by them viz a viz not accepting the innocent explanation advanced by the applicants.
I am of the view that from this judgement all those who have pleaded innocence all along and kept fighting their corner in and out of UK may reapply to Home Office and plead their case in light of this judgement. This is akin to a similar situation wherein through my vast experience in the area I have defended applicants in and out of the UK successfully, the likes of HSMP cases to TOEIC sufferers. I now
look forward to my ongoing challenge defending more innocent Para 322(5) applicants who suffered the anguish by the Home offices impugned decisions.