Case Studies — Real Results for Real People

Mr A, a national from Eritrea, submitted an asylum claim to the UK Home Office based on persecution he faced in his home country. His initial claim was refused on the grounds that the Home Office considered his account insufficiently detailed and his risk assessment inconclusive. Facing removal, Mr A was in a precarious position with limited time to challenge the decision.

We immediately commenced an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Our strategy involved gathering comprehensive fresh evidence, including detailed country conditions reports on the current situation in Eritrea, expert medical and psychological evidence documenting Mr A's trauma, and additional witness statements from individuals within the diaspora community. We carefully constructed a legal argument grounded in both the Refugee Convention 1951 and established case law on persecution.

At the tribunal hearing, the judge found Mr A's testimony credible and the expert evidence compelling. The tribunal allowed the appeal and granted Mr A refugee status, recognising that he faced a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Eritrea. He was granted indefinite leave to remain and eligibility for family reunification.

Mr B, a national from Pakistan who had lived in Glasgow for 12 years, received a deportation order following a criminal conviction. The Home Office asserted that his removal was in the public interest despite his substantial ties to the United Kingdom. Mr B had fathered three British-born children and was in a stable relationship. The prospect of separation from his family was devastating.

We pursued a robust Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights claim, asserting Mr B's right to respect for private and family life. Our legal strategy centred on proportionality: whilst we acknowledged the seriousness of the conviction, we constructed detailed evidence demonstrating that removal would disproportionately impact his three young children, causing significant harm to their welfare and disrupting their education and relationships with their father. We gathered extensive character references, evidence of rehabilitation, employment records and expert assessments of the children's needs.

The First-tier Tribunal accepted our proportionality arguments and found that the Public Interest Exception to Article 8 did not apply. The tribunal determined that the children's best interests and the strength of family ties were sufficient to outweigh the public interest in removal. The deportation order was quashed and Mr B was granted indefinite leave to remain.

Ms C, a Glasgow resident, applied for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) due to significant mobility and daily living difficulties caused by a chronic health condition. The initial decision maker rejected her claim without conducting a face-to-face assessment. Ms C subsequently requested mandatory reconsideration, but the Home Office again refused. She was left without the financial support she desperately needed.

We lodged an appeal with the Social Security tribunal. To strengthen Ms C's case, we gathered comprehensive supporting evidence including detailed GP records, specialist reports from her treating clinician documenting her functional limitations, and a detailed daily living evidence diary that Ms C kept documenting her activities over several weeks. We prepared detailed written submissions and represented Ms C at the oral hearing, cross-examining the Department for Work and Pensions' assessor and presenting Ms C's evidence in the most compelling way.

The tribunal allowed Ms C's appeal in full and awarded her the enhanced rate for both the daily living component and mobility component of PIP. The tribunal found the medical evidence persuasive and determined that Ms C's initial application had not been properly assessed. She received a substantial back payment and entitlement to ongoing payments.

Mrs D applied for a UK spouse visa to join her husband in Glasgow following their marriage. The Home Office refused the application on the grounds that her husband's income fell marginally short of the £18,600 financial requirement. Mrs D faced the prospect of continued family separation, and neither she nor her husband fully understood the options available to challenge the decision or meet the financial threshold through alternative means.

We carefully reviewed the financial evidence. We identified that Mrs D's husband had failed to disclose additional qualifying income in the form of rental income from a property, which when properly documented and declared would exceed the threshold. Additionally, we explored third-party support options and gathered supporting evidence from family members willing to provide financial backing if necessary. We prepared a new, meticulously documented application with revised financial evidence and comprehensive explanatory statements addressing the Home Office's concerns.

The Home Office approved the second application, recognising that the financial threshold was now clearly met through the properly documented rental income. Mrs D's spouse visa was granted for two years, with the option to renew thereafter. Mr and Mrs D were finally reunited after more than a year of separation.

Mr E, a Glasgow resident, lost contact with his two children after their mother made serious allegations of abuse and obtained an interim interdict (interim protective order) preventing him from approaching the family home or having direct contact. Mr E maintained that the allegations were false and motivated by the mother's desire to alienate him from the children. He was devastated by the loss of contact and determined to restore his relationship with his children.

We developed a comprehensive strategy focused on the children's welfare. We arranged an independent child welfare assessment by a qualified social worker to provide objective evidence regarding the children's relationship with their father and their needs. We gathered substantial evidence challenging the mother's allegations through witness statements and Mr E's own testimony. We negotiated a structured supervised contact arrangement as a first step to re-establish the children's relationship with their father whilst addressing the mother's stated concerns. We represented Mr E vigorously at court proceedings.

The court found that the allegations against Mr E lacked credibility and were not substantiated. Supervised contact was initially ordered and gradually transitioned to unsupervised contact. The court made a full contact order allowing Mr E regular time with his children. The relationship between Mr E and his children was successfully restored, and the family was able to rebuild trust.

Ms F, a national from Nigeria, was detained by immigration authorities whilst an asylum claim was being processed. Weeks turned into months. After four months in detention, Ms F had no realistic prospect of removal (the destination country had not agreed to accept her return, and alternative suitable countries could not be identified). Her mental health severely deteriorated whilst in detention. She felt abandoned and hopeless, with no clear end date to her detention.

We immediately commenced emergency judicial review proceedings in the High Court. Our legal argument focused on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security) and the principle established in case law that detention without realistic prospect of removal is unlawful. We obtained detailed medical evidence from Ms F's psychiatrist documenting her serious mental health deterioration directly attributable to the detention. We prepared urgent written and oral submissions arguing that continued detention was unlawful, irrational and breached her human rights.

Following the urgent hearing, the High Court granted our application for judicial review. Ms F was released from detention immediately. Subsequently, the immigration authorities agreed to settle Ms F's claim for damages for unlawful detention, and she received substantial compensation in recognition of the four months she spent unlawfully detained and the harm to her mental health.