Entry clearance
We were advised to return to South Africa to apply for entry clearance.
Rebuttal
The Exceptional Assurance concession – 39E(5) and 39F were in place therefore returning to South Africa was unnecessary.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=6256
The immigration rules could be waived
If you decide to stay in the UK, you should apply for the necessary permission to stay to regularise your stay. You’ll be able to submit an application form from within the UK, whereas you would usually need to apply for a visa from your home country.
Rebuttal
The rules were not waived. You had to request permission to stay – if you were granted permission to stay, you were able to submit an application form from within the UK.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=7765
The application was refused
The Home Office substantively considered and refused the application.
Rebuttal
The Home Office rejected the application and therefore it was invalid.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=7478
Overstaying
We agreed to become overstayers.
Rebuttal
We agreed to become overstayers no adverse consequences for overstaying.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=8420
Delays
The Home Office and the biometrics appointment are the reason for the delays.
Rebuttal
The biometric reuse policy was put in place by the Home Office to accelerate visa applications. UK Migration Lawyers failed to send the selfie to the Home Office.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=6905
Appealing
An appeal was a viable option.
Rebuttal
An appeal was futile.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=6868
Warned of failure
We were warned of failure.
Rebuttal
This does not enhance the defence.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=5059
Ban for overstaying more than 3 months
A re-entry ban is not enforced if applying for entry clearance as a partner.
Rebuttal
We were advised by counsel not to risk a third refusal.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=6395
Undermining the severity of committing an immigration crime
Overstaying as a spouse is not serious.
Rebuttal
It is a criminal offence and there is long-term reputational damage.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=7129
Change of circumstances
According to UK Migration Lawyers and Kennedys Law a change in circumstances is contradictory.
Rebuttal
There is absolutely no reason why we should not change our minds, opinions, where we live, who lives with us, what we do for work, travelling to other countries, applying for British citizenship etc. It is completely irrelevant and is being raised to avoid paying damages.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=3360
Breach of contract
UK Migration Lawyers denies breach of contract.
Rebuttal
It is not only breach of contract it is also misrepresentation and therefore UK Migration Lawyers is responsible for all consequential damages and lost opportunities. UK Migration Lawyers, Kennedys Law and Garden Court put a defence together that is not arguable in court, would waste the courts time, and cause damage to their companies’ reputation. They raised futile arguments with the intention of misleading and taking advantage of others. Therefore all legal fees are to be included – with interest.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=6678
and
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=5059
Human rights
Human rights arguments were cited, for the sake of completeness.
Rebuttal
This was an exceptionally easy application. It’s inexcusable that it failed. UK Migration Lawyers were told pre-sale not to rely on human rights.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=7194
Disregarding overstaying
Paragraph 39E allows the Home Office to disregard a period of overstaying following a refusal of an in-time application where it is made within 14 days of the refusal (as was the case here).
Rebuttal
Paragraph 39E is for applications from overstayers.
https://lawsjaws.co.uk/?p=7651