Going to ORAL hearing with out Solicitor, appeal for PR.

Hi guys, on Friday I'm going to court but today my solicitor told me she can't go with me as I don't qualify for legal aid due to my and my wife's salary!! I can't afford £1000 or more for private solicitor plus 4 day to go to court.
My wife and I will go to court alone!!
Any idea how judge will react with out having solicitor, and any tips or advice for me please???

Thanks for advice mates.

Please try and consolidate everything into one thread. You have an existing post dealing with this issue, try and ensure everything stays in one place.

You are seeking to argue an issue which will create a precedent if successful, i would have thought a barrister would be most appropriate in those circumstances. Then again it is good news that your spouse has agreed to stand by your side.

Obie wrote:Please try and consolidate everything into one thread. You have an existing post dealing with this issue, try and ensure everything stays in one place.

You are seeking to argue an issue which will create a precedent if successful, i would have thought a barrister would be most appropriate in those circumstances. Then again it is good news that your spouse has agreed to stand by your side.

I will delete the other post(thread) anyway now is too late for a barrister so I guess we are going by ourselves!!! any advice??

It won't be a precedent. See Durable relationship before marriage recognised for PR.

To be honest, as I believe the HO decision was according to the regulations, I don't have any advice what to argue. Maybe you would be lucky and the judge would allow the appeal.

It could still be a precedent. There is no reported cases or authority on this issue. Perhaps his case might be reported and be used in future cases.

The other case you cited was not reported, and it cannot be used as a binding precedent.

I gave you my opinion previously, your five years of marriage will come soon. Consider this before you waste money, stress, etc on this. I imagine that the home office will not let your case set a precedent without a fight.

Save your money and concentrate on your marriage - good to hear things are better.

Jambo wrote:It won't be a precedent. See Durable relationship before marriage recognised for PR.

To be honest, as I believe the HO decision was according to the regulations, I don't have any advice what to argue. Maybe you would be lucky and the judge would allow the appeal.

Thanks Jambo, I've seen other threads people has appealed and won the court(PR) based on 5 yrs relation with just over 3 yrs marriage.
Nothing to lose, besides I will mention that we been together now 6 yrs with 4 yrs marriage so obviously is only 1 yr to fight for, so that might be easier for the judge.
The thing is we are going alone, with out any lawyer and don't know nothing about it, it's on this Friday and I haven't even sent our witness statement due to address changed and phone was stolen, just found out yesterday and lawyer not coming with us.

strange story,
Yesterday I had a phone call(with held the number) from HO after confirming who I'm, she told me Mr..... you have court tomorrow( as in today Friday) I said yes madam, she said you don't have to go any more and I asked her why?!! she said sorry she has review the decision and the case worker has made a wrong decision(she said it should be based on 5 yrs living together not the marriage) so she is with drawing the decision and I have to send her the papers that confirm time before marriage as the case worker has only looked at the marriage certificate and made the decision which is wrong!!!!!!!!!
I talk to my lawyer after that and she told me don't trust HO and HO wants you to miss the court so they will win the case. so I decided to go to court today and I did.
I will write more tomorrow,,,,strange story!!

Sounds interesting! Based on my dealings with UKBA, I think your lawyer was right.

How did you get on spike?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Sounds interesting! Based on my dealings with UKBA, I think your lawyer was right.

Get more interesting!!! I went to court today and after I was directed to the room, a lady walked in and said hi nice to know u,,,u still come!!! I said u must be(...) she said yes and I told u I will with draw the decision, I said yes mum I was convinced but my lawyer told me to go anyway....besides I want the judge to hear the story...judge walked in and after discussion he said mr.... all u have to do is to get HO what they ask for(deviance before marriage) and we should not come back here again,,,,and I said your honer, my question is why would a HO case worker in first place ignore my documents and make a wrong decision!!!! judge wrote my point down ,,,,,

It is very strange indeed, as presenting officers are not required to withdraw decision or concede a case , even when it is obviously wrong. Even senior PO who sits in Upper Tribunal cases only concede a case in very exceptional cases. I am pleased for you spike, and if it is confirmed they now have power to concede a case or withdraw a decidion, that will be a first. Even though it seem like the decision was withdrawn as opposed to concede, that is a huge upward step in their power. I belurve this will save a lot of taxpayers money.

It is important that without a tribunal passing a rule 17 withdrawal decision, an appeallant should still attend court and not take the word of the presenting officer.

There might be a situation where a PO acted in good faith, but file is passed on to another person the next day, who feels differently.

Obie wrote:It is very strange indeed, as presenting officers are not required to withdraw decision or concede a case , even when it is obviously wrong. Even senior PO who sits in Upper Tribunal cases only concede a case in very exceptional cases. I am pleased for you spike, and if it is confirmed they now have power to concede a case or withdraw a decidion, that will be a first. Even though it seem like the decision was withdrawn as opposed to concede, that is a huge upward step in their power. I belurve this will save a lot of taxpayers money.

It is important that without a tribunal passing a rule 17 withdrawal decision, an appeallant should still attend court and not take the word of the presenting officer.

There might be a situation where a PO acted in good faith, but file is passed on to another person the next day, who feels differently.

Hi Obie, thanks for advice but could you clear your points please.

After court I spoke to my lawyer and she said,,,,,YOU NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS!!! I was like what happened.
On Thursday just after HO re-presenter had rang, she had also rang my lawyer and asked her about the appeal and my the lawyer hasn't sent no response, as she was checking on her whether nobody going to court any more!! my lawyer told her that she is not working for me any more, so the HO REP told her anyway no point that I'm going to court I will lose the case, as my marriage is not 5 yrs and nothing I can fight with what so ever!! my lawyer told her she was wrong, I apply on 5yrs relation, then she said to my lawyer as you don't work for him any more it's no point talking to you but please tell your client not to go to court,,he will only be wasting everybody's time and at the end he will lose the case.
My lawyer told her don't worry he would be just fine at the court.
If I had known this the day before(Thursday) then I would have said to Judge at court.
I'm so confused about this HO REP!!! what do you guys think? is she helping? no. is she trying to trick me? so why she said exactly the same to judge at front of me!!

anp wrote:How did you get on spike?

Hi man, congratulations, it was very quick!!!
I have put a couple of post above you can read them about my cased,,,,it's very strange.

spike_UK wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Sounds interesting! Based on my dealings with UKBA, I think your lawyer was right.

Get more interesting!!! I went to court today and after I was directed to the room, a lady walked in and said hi nice to know u,,,u still come!!! I said u must be(...) she said yes and I told u I will with draw the decision, I said yes mum I was convinced but my lawyer told me to go anyway....besides I want the judge to hear the story...judge walked in and after discussion he said mr.... all u have to do is to get HO what they ask for(deviance before marriage) and we should not come back here again,,,,and I said your honer, my question is why would a HO case worker in first place ignore my documents and make a wrong decision!!!! judge wrote my point down ,,,,,

What exactly did the presenting officer say during the hearing? Did she say what she had told you on the phone the previous day?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:

spike_UK wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Sounds interesting! Based on my dealings with UKBA, I think your lawyer was right.

Get more interesting!!! I went to court today and after I was directed to the room, a lady walked in and said hi nice to know u,,,u still come!!! I said u must be(...) she said yes and I told u I will with draw the decision, I said yes mum I was convinced but my lawyer told me to go anyway....besides I want the judge to hear the story...judge walked in and after discussion he said mr.... all u have to do is to get HO what they ask for(deviance before marriage) and we should not come back here again,,,,and I said your honer, my question is why would a HO case worker in first place ignore my documents and make a wrong decision!!!! judge wrote my point down ,,,,,

What exactly did the presenting officer say during the hearing? Did she say what she had told you on the phone the previous day?

Yes, she said to the judge that she has told me on the phone that I shouldn't go but I made a right decision to go anyway, she would have done the same if she was me(she said to judge).

What did she say about your case?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:What did she say about your case?

She said that it should be based on 5 yrs relation not marriage and I have to send again the documents only before marriage, as she already has seen my marriage certificate.
I'm sending them tomorrow. From January 2007 until November 2007 when we got married.

spike_UK wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:What did she say about your case?

She said that it should be based on 5 yrs relation not marriage and I have to send again the documents only before marriage, as she already has seen my marriage certificate.
I'm sending them tomorrow. From January 2007 until November 2007 when we got married.

So she said in the hearing pretty much exactly what she said to you on the phone the day before?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:

spike_UK wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:What did she say about your case?

She said that it should be based on 5 yrs relation not marriage and I have to send again the documents only before marriage, as she already has seen my marriage certificate.
I'm sending them tomorrow. From January 2007 until November 2007 when we got married.

So she said in the hearing pretty much exactly what she said to you on the phone the day before?

Yes, but after the hearing I rang my lawyer and she said she had called her as well the day before court and she asked my lawyer to convince me not to go to court as I have nothing to stand on and I will lose anyway,,,,,,,so I don't understand!!! Is my lawyer lie to me or HO representing officer

Why would your lawyer possibly lie to you?

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Why would your lawyer possibly lie to you?

Obviously she wouldn't at all. I was wrong to think that, she is a good woman, so ok then why the HO representing officers tell me that and then after me she call my lawyer and tell her different story!!!(to convince me not to go to court as I will lose anyway!!!). what is your understanding or experience of this kind of story? thanks

spike_UK wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Why would your lawyer possibly lie to you?

Obviously she wouldn't at all. I was wrong to think that, she is a good woman, so ok then why the HO representing officers tell me that and then after me she call my lawyer and tell her different story!!!(to convince me not to go to court as I will lose anyway!!!). what is your understanding or experience of this kind of story? thanks

stop wasting people's time repeating yourself, we all get it. Incompetent HO rep and a messed up system, professionally wasting taxpayers' money...nothing new here and I doubt a similar thing will happen to many on here.

mcovet wrote:

spike_UK wrote:

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Why would your lawyer possibly lie to you?

Obviously she wouldn't at all. I was wrong to think that, she is a good woman, so ok then why the HO representing officers tell me that and then after me she call my lawyer and tell her different story!!!(to convince me not to go to court as I will lose anyway!!!). what is your understanding or experience of this kind of story? thanks

stop wasting people's time repeating yourself, we all get it. Incompetent HO rep and a messed up system, professionally wasting taxpayers' money...nothing new here and I doubt a similar thing will happen to many on here.

What is your problem!!!! the Directive asked me question and I answer,,,,I don't understand you.