Latest Posts

Turning the Tide: How We Overturned a Visa Refusal Due to Criminal Convictions

Applying for a UK visa can be a challenging process, particularly when an applicant has a history of criminal charges. In a recent case, I successfully overturned a visa refusal based on criminal grounds, securing my client’s right to enter the UK despite significant legal obstacles. This case highlights the power of a well-structured legal argument and strategic advocacy in overcoming complex immigration barriers.

Background

My client applied for a UK visa but was refused due to previous criminal convictions. The Home Office assessed that their criminal history posed a risk to public safety and deemed their presence in the UK ‘conducive to the public good’.

With six past charges, including robbery, drug possession, and theft, my client’s application was refused under paragraph 9.4.1 of the Immigration Rules, which states that an application ‘must’ be refused if an applicant:

(a) has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas for which they have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more; or

(b) is a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law; or

(c) has committed a criminal offence, or offences, which caused serious harm.

The refusal was based on (b) and (c), with the Home Office asserting that my client was a persistent offender and that their offences had caused serious harm.

Key Challenges

One of the main hurdles in this case was contesting the Home Office’s classification of my client’s past conduct as ‘serious harm’ and establishing that they were not a persistent offender at the time of application. The Refusal Letter stated that:

“where a person has been convicted of one or more violent, drugs-related, racially motivated, or sexual offences, they will normally be considered to have been convicted of an offence that has caused serious harm.”

Although my client’s convictions were more than a decade old, UK immigration law does not impose a time limit on considering past criminality in visa applications. This is in contrast to naturalisation applications, where most offences are disregarded after ten years. Given this, it was essential to challenge the Home Office’s interpretation of my client’s past offences and establish that they no longer posed a risk to the public.

My Strategic Legal Approach

To overturn the refusal, I pursued an Administrative Review, adopting a multi-faceted approach:

1. Critical Review of the Decision – I conducted a detailed analysis of the refusal letter, identifying gaps, inconsistencies and weaknesses in the Home Office’s reasoning.
2. Legal Argumentation – Highlighting Key Errors:
   • Unsubstantiated Serious Harm Claim– The Home Office’s assertion was unsupported by evidence and should not have been a decisive factor in the refusal.
   • Disproportionate Conclusions– The circumstances of the case did not support the claim that the offence had a widespread harmful impact.
   • Misapplication of the ‘persistent offender’ standard– The Home Office incorrectly referenced past convictions without considering whether a pattern of offending still existed at the time of application.
   • Sentencing guidelines– A careful review of sentencing precedents showed that my client’s offences did not meet the threshold for serious harm in the immigration law context.
3. Case Law Precedents– I cited relevant legal precedents to demonstrate that not all violent or drug-related offences automatically meet the threshold of serious harm.
4. Demonstrating Rehabilitation– To reinforce my client’s case, I presented substantial evidence, including character references, employment history, and proof of community engagement, to establish that my client had reformed.

By structuring the Administrative Review in this way, I demonstrated that the refusal was based on outdated and disproportionate reasoning and that my client posed no ongoing risk to public safety.

The Outcome

Following a well-evidenced and persuasive challenge, the Home Office overturned the visa refusal. My client was granted permission to enter the UK, allowing them to work and rebuild their life – a result that would have been unattainable without strategic legal intervention.

Key Takeaways

This case underscores the importance of:

• Challenging visa refusals through Administrative Review when decisions are unfair.
• Building a compelling legal argument based on proportionality and fairness.
• Challenging misinterpretations of serious harm and persistent offending.
• Presenting strong evidence of rehabilitation to counter past convictions.

Overturning a visa refusal based on criminality is a highly complex process that requires precise legal arguments, in-depth case law research, and compelling evidence. Every detail matters. While the above outlines key elements of our strategy, success in such cases depends on addressing a range of intricate legal and evidentiary challenges tailored to the specific circumstances of each client.

With the right legal representation, many refusals can be successfully overturned. If you or someone you know has been denied a UK visa due to past conviction, my team and I are here to help. Contact us today to discuss your case and explore your options for appeal.

Read More

No Change, Please: The Initial Results of the Law Commission’s Consultation on Security of Tenure are in

Interim results of the consultation on reforming the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 confirm that no significant change to the existing law will be forthcoming.

The Consultation

From 19 November 2024 to 19 February 2025, the Law Commission ran a significant consultation on whether business tenancies in England and Wales should continue to benefit from security of tenure. Security of tenure is a right under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act“) which gives business tenants the option to renew their lease, or the capacity to be financially compensated where this is not possible.

The initial results are in, and the Law Commission has posted its interim statement, addressing the direction the consultation and any resulting reform is likely to take.

The current system is an opt-out model, where business leases automatically include this right to renew, unless it is expressly excluded from the lease.

The Options for Reform

The models of security of tenure proposed in the consultation were:

• No reform, retaining the current opt-out model; or
• Reversing the current model and opt-in; or
• Abolishing security of tenure; or
• Mandatory security of tenure.

The Law Commission has provisionally concluded that the existing ‘contracting-out’ model is the correct approach. The arguments in favour of retaining this were convincing and received the broadest support among consultees.

Many consultees expressed a view that the current model achieves the optimal balance between landlords and tenants. Many also voiced concerns that altering the model could lead to unnecessary disruption in the commercial leasehold market.

Other Key Issues Addressed in the Statement

Excluded tenancies

The 1954 Act currently excludes certain types of tenancies, for instance, agricultural tenancies, and the consultation asked whether the current list of excluded tenancies is still appropriate. The consultees were in favour of the current law and the Law Commission provisionally agrees.

Duration of Tenancies

The 1954 Act also excludes short tenancies of up to 6 months, and this was also consulted on. Views were mixed, but consensus seemed to favour increasing the threshold to 2 years, to give more flexibility to the short-term lettings market. The Law Commission provisionally agrees.

The Future

Substantial changes to the doctrine of security of tenure would have created uncertainty for both existing business leases and those under negotiation at the time of reform.

Property owners and developers value flexibility, which explains the limited appetite for sweeping changes to the current framework.

While often regarded as an administrative burden, with the high thresholds for landlords to establish grounds (f) and (g) remaining a source of frustration, the current model has been rigorously tested, and continues to evolve through case law.

Ultimately, the Law Commission’s final report will present recommendations for reform based on the consultees’ feedback. Any legislative reform will still need to be implemented in the usual way, passing through and receiving Parliamentary approval.

To contact our property litigation team, please contact us by completing the form below.

Read More

Immigration White Paper Summary

Over the past couple of weeks, I have had an influx of messages from my clients asking about the new UK Immigration White Paper, and I wanted to share a quick summary of the proposed changes, as they could have a significant impact on many.

10 key changes outlined in the paper include:

Work Visa Changes:

• Skilled Worker Visas: Eligibility raised to RQF Level 6 (degree level) or higher, with increased salary thresholds. Skilled workers will be required to meet CEFR B2 level in English.
• Social Care Visas: Closed to new applicants, but extensions allowed until 2028 for existing workers.
• Temporary Shortage Occupation List: New list for occupations below RQF Level 6 to temporarily access the immigration system.
• Immigration Skills Charge: Increased by 32%.
• All adult dependants of workers must meet A1 English language proficiency, with a gradual increase in requirements over time.

Study Visa Reforms:

• Graduate Visa: Reduced to 18 months (down from 2 years).
• Stricter Sponsorship Requirements: Universities face higher compliance standards and a new Agent Quality Framework.

Family & Settlement:

• Settlement Period: Extended to 10 years for most visa categories.
• Bereaved Parent Route: New route for parents who have lost a British or settled child to settle immediately.
• English Language Requirements: Visa extensions will require progression to A2 level, and settlement will require B2 level.

Important

While these changes are not yet in force, they are proposals. I have numerous clients asking whether they should be concerned. If you are currently working through visa applications or considering options, it is definitely worth staying informed and seeking advice. If you currently qualify under any visa category, I strongly advise acting quickly to avoid any potential impact once stricter rules may take effect.

If you’d like to get in touch with our expert Immigration team, please complete the form below.

Read More