This appeal relates to an application lodged by ICS Legal on behalf of the appellant under the spouse visa, Appendix FM and right to family life Article 8 ECHR, which was then wrongly refused by the Home Office and the First Tier Tribunal agreed with ICS Legal in allowing the immigration appeal.

Full facts of the case and what we did is enclosed. Please note due to data protection, the appellant's name or any relevant details are not enclosed. 

Summary case facts

The appellant and her husband relocated from Singapore. However at the Border Control, they was advised to make a spouse visa application to remain on the spouse visa route, namely Appendix FM. Their initial application prior instructing ICS Legal was wrong.

They had chosen the wrong visa form, which meant that the first application could not be appealed and ICS Legal advised on a new application with the correct form & evidences to support the spouse visa application. 

The application was lodged with the guidance of the Home Office and the Judge made the following statement:

"The first immigration advice they received was from the border officer at Heathrow airport who provided a six month visa and told them they could apply for a further visa online before the end of the six months. This was what they then did. They did not seek further legal advice and they simply looked at the Home Office website and then applied online. In such circumstances it is perhaps unsurprising that they applied for the wrong type of visa which is the main contention of the respondent now."

Appeal hearing at 2nd Aug 2022 at Columbus House, Newport

Home Office was represented by Counsel, it went before Judge of the First Tier Tribunal Lester. The appeal looked at whether the appellant met the requirements of the spouse visa and the refusal letter contained a number of legal errors.

ICS Legal presented the matter, with the protection of paragraph 39E of the Immigration Rules. Counsel for the Home Office could not argue on the point that the appellant had entered the UK as a visitor, but claimed she had overstayed her visa.

In doing so, Home Office had placed themselves in a position, where the appellant was able to switch through paragraph 39E of the Immigration Rules. The initial application the appellant and sponsor lodged was wrong. It was corrected using the 14 days rules which the Home Office accepted but failed to observe the appellant's immigration status. Nonetheless, the Counsel for the Home Office made no submissions. 

A detailed chronlogy of events was presented, demonstrated that they had met all the prescribed immigration rules, namely the spouse visa under Appendix FM. Our submissions demonstrated that the Home Office erred in their decision making and the Judge allowed the appeal.