Post
by Amber » Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:05 pm
I will assume the children are British. I suggest you send the following by 1st class recorded delivery to the address of the top of the decision letter. Amended to reflect the exact circumstances. In addition send 3 further letters, 1. A GP letter confirming the child's disability and his/her absolute reliance on you, 2. a copy of the court injunction and 3. a letter from a social worker explaining that the Father was abusive and for the children's mental stability and best interest your settlement in the UK is paramount.
Dear Sir or Madam,
RE: your details – Reconsideration of decision
I have recently been granted limited leave to remain for 2.5 years under Appendix FM: Family Life Provision on a 10 year route to settlement. However, I do not believe this decision is correct, reasonable or fair. Prior to my most recent application, I was granted Discretionary Leave to Remain (DLR) for 3 years under the rules in place before 9 July 2012, a 6 year route to settlement. I believe that I should have been granted an extension of the DLR for another 3 years, not 2.5 years leave to remain under Appendix FM.
As per the transitional arrangements, those who before 9 July 2012, have been granted leave under the DLR policy in force at the time will normally continue to be dealt with under that policy through to settlement if they. Decision makers must consider whether the circumstances prevailing at the time of the original grant of leave continue at the date of the decision.
At the time of the previous application I had two children who were aged 7 and 2 and another child which was born at around the time of the DLR being granted. All my children were born in the UK. The children are British. The youngest child, now aged 3 is disabled and I am his/her full time carer. We no longer have contact with the Father as he was abusive towards me and the courts granted an injunction to prevent contact. However, the primary reason for my previous leave was due to my children and the care and support I give my children. It would not be reasonable for my children to move to another Country nor would it be reasonable to allow my children’s violent Father to assume caring responsibilities. I believe your latest decision does not consider the best interest of the children. For my children, especially my disabled child, it is paramount that I am here to support them; therefore, my settlement is of upmost importance.
Following the Supreme Court case of ZH v (Tanzania) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, it was confirmed that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), in particular the requirement on State Parties to treat children's best interests as a primary consideration in their decision making, at the very heart of decisions that are taken in family immigration applications. As per Baroness Hale, "best interests of the child" broadly means the well-being of the child. Therefore, the well-being of my children relies heavily on my ability to care and support them. I only required 3 years further DLR in order to settle, allowing my children’s emotional state to become stabilised, ensuring I am here to offer care and support. However, now that you have put me on a new 10-year route to settlement, that stability has been shattered and my children are left in a situation where they don’t know what will happen in the future. This is clearly not in their best interest and only adds emotional trauma.
My children have an unqualified right of abode here; they have lived here all their lives; they are being educated here; they have other social links with the community here, they rely on me. I wish to also draw your attention to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 which places an obligation on you to ensure that immigration decisions are made having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK.
With regards to Lord Kerr’s statement in HH, best interests “must always be at the forefront of any decision-maker’s mind. This calls for a sequencing of, first, consideration of the importance to be attached to the children’s rights (by obtaining a clear-sighted understanding of their nature), then an assessment of the degree of interference and finally addressing the question whether [the government’s action] justifies the interference. This is not merely a mechanistic or slavishly technical approach to the order in which the various considerations require to be evaluated. It accords proper prominence to the matter of the children’s interests.”
Given the fact that I have a strong relationship with my children, just I did previously, the fact that the reason for no contact with the children’s Father is because he is abusive, as confirmed by the courts, the fact that my children rely on me and that I am the primary carer for my disabled youngest child, are all supporting reasons why you should grant me the further 3 years DLR I require.
I have given strong reasons why I should be granted a further 3 years DLR and I ask you to reconsider your decision and grant me either Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) on an exceptional and discretionary basis (my circumstances are not going to change) if this is absolutely not possible then grant me the further 3 years DLR I originally requested.
The benefit of grating me ILR would add stability for my children, save money (as to avoid further destitution) and allow me to ensure that my disabled child has a future which can be as less stressful as possible. I believe my situation is clearly exceptional.
If this does not happen, I will have no option but to request a Judicial Review of your decision as I believe you have acted ultra vires, by not considering my children’s best interest and the fact that I have been the victim of domestic abuse. You quote that I have no contact with the Children’s Father, however, this is because of domestic abuse and the risk to my life and the life of my children, would you expect me to continue to allow such a person access to my children and me? If you do, this is surely in direct conflict with section 55 of the 2009 Act. Instead of assisting me in a most desperate position, you have added further restraint and trauma by setting me on an extended, more restrictive route to settlement.
I have enclosed supporting evidence from the courts and professionals who are involved in the care of my children.
I hope you can, this time, carefully consider my case and I look forward to a prompt reply.
**this forum is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice**
Click
here to send me a PM regarding an offensive post.
Do NOT PM me for immigration advice.