Stopping Deportation
As discussed in our June article Entry Clearance at the UK Border, the UK border control process can be brutal and unforgiving. In this article, we share a recent success story involving a client who faced imminent deportation.
A Recent Case Success
To maintain confidentiality, we will refer to our client as “C”. C approached us regarding their partner, “R”, who had been detained and was facing imminent removal from the UK on 15 July 2025.
R had travelled from Brazil to the UK on a Standard Visitor Visa in 2023, valid for six months. An application was later made under the EU Settlement Scheme, but it was unfortunately refused.
After the visa expired in late 2023, R claimed asylum due to a legitimate fear of persecution in Brazil. However, his claim was also refused. The Home Office concluded that the threats he faced from criminal gangs lacked credibility, that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, and that he had not shown he was unable to access effective state protection or safely relocate within Brazil. Additionally, the delay in submitting his asylum claim was cited as a factor undermining his credibility.
More recently, the Home Office decided to detain R and deport him to Brazil. The decision was based on several grounds: that R did not fulfil the definition of a partner under FEN 1.2; that there was insufficient evidence of a genuine and subsisting relationship with C; that the couple had not lived together in the UK; that R was in breach of immigration rules; and that there were no significant obstacles preventing his return to Brazil. Furthermore, it was not accepted that Article 3 ECHR considerations applied to R’s case in light of his mental health struggles, including depression and anxiety.
Upon receiving instructions from C, we promptly initiated Judicial Review proceedings to challenge two key decisions: the refusal of R’s asylum application in May 2025 and the subsequent decision to detain and remove him in July 2025.
Our Judicial Review (JR) claim challenged the May decision on the basis that it failed to adequately consider R’s private life and was invalidated by an unlawful failure of effective service. We argued that the July decision breached the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003, violated principles of procedural fairness, and infringed upon R’s Article 8 ECHR rights to respect for private life, as well as common law public law principles.
A central issue in the case was proving that R and C had been in a genuine and subsisting relationship akin to marriage, and had been living together since January 2024. We submitted extensive evidence to the court, including a joint tenancy agreement, shared financial responsibilities, and letters of support from third parties attesting to the nature of their relationship.
Thanks to swift and strategic legal action, we successfully halted R’s deportation—just as he was due to board the flight that would have returned him to a country where he fears persecution and serious harm.
Given the often-lengthy nature of Judicial Review proceedings, we were confident that R would be granted bail, as it would be unreasonable for him to remain in detention throughout the process. He has since been released on BAIL 201 for the duration of the JR. We remain committed to representing R as he seeks to resolve his immigration status and reunite with his partner outside of detention.
C expressed his appreciation for the work we did on the case, saying:
“I had the most amazing service provided by Sashi and Brigesa…very professional and efficient, we had to deal with Immigration and Deportation issues and it was very successful”.
This case was handled by Brigesa Ujkaj, under the supervision of Sashi Pararajasingam.
This article was written by our legal intern Vanathi Sutharsan.