MASTERS OF MAYHEM

KENNEDYS LAW – 6 July 2023

“The application our Client made on the basis of your Client’s instructions was a viable one in all of the circumstances. In any event, your Client was advised that the prospects of success were “arguable” and that a successful result could not be guaranteed.”

KENNEDYS LAW – 27 September 2023

“We refute your statement that rejection was the inevitable outcome. Whilst we see that your view (with the benefit of impermissible hindsight) is that the application had no real prospect of success, this was not our Client’s assessment in the context of their experience and practice at the time. Our Client considered that there were ‘arguable’ grounds and stated the prospects as such in the Client Care letter.”

OUR COMMENTS

It was arguable if:

• UK Migration Lawyers had not told us we had already overstayed. This was a misrepresentation.
• UK Migration Lawyers had sent the selfie to the Home Office within 25 days.
• UK Migration Lawyers had applied for exceptional assurance to prevent overstaying.
• UK Migration Lawyers had ensured the evidence was suitable for the 5-year entry visa.
• UK Migration Lawyers had submitted all of the evidence to the Home Office within 10 days.
• UK Migration Lawyers had made it clear the application was for entry clearance for the 5-year leave to remain route.
• UK Migration Lawyers respected the law.
• UK Migration Lawyers did not propose services that were destined to result in failure – for instance the futile appeal.

The client assumed that UK Migration Lawyers was:

• Honest.
• Competent.
• Respected the client’s time and money.
• Wanted the application to succeed.
• Respected the law.

The same applies to the aftermath and the damage caused by Kennedys Law.