Duncan Lewis

Dalston Office


Duncan Lewis

Harrow Office


Duncan Lewis

Shepherds Bush Office


Duncan Lewis

Tooting Office


Duncan Lewis

Lewisham Office


FeedWind

Duncan Lewis

Immigration

Asylum, Detention/ Fast Track

Managed Migration, Public Law

 

 

Duncan Lewis:There are many reasons why someone may wish to claim asylum in the UK, and all applications are carefully considered on their individual merits, with a dedicated caseworker assigned to each applicant to help them through the process and explain what is going on at each stage.

The definition of a refugee has been laid out in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and essentially, if anyone wants to claim asylum in the UK, he or she needs to be able to satisfy the criteria. They have to have what is considered a well-founded fear that in their own country they will be liable to persecution on the grounds of religion, political opinion, nationality, race or membership of a social group. Asylum seekers must be able to convince the Home Office that their account is correct and

 

 

 

Duncan Lewis:The CSA (Child Support Agency) is the agency that deals with child maintenance when both a child and its parents are living in the UK. When one of the parents is living abroad, this can be a bit trickier but there is legislation in place to deal with cases where a maintenance order has been issued abroad. Family and childcare solicitors, such as Duncan Lewis, will be happy to give help and advice relating to this and other legal matters.

There are international agreements existing between the UK and over 100 other countries relating to child maintenance, and these are known as REMOs (Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders).

When a REMO has been set up, it means effectively that when courts in the UK issue child maintenance orders these orders can be registered and

 

 

 

Duncan Lewis:In the UK, claims for asylum are handled by the UK Border Agency. The complexity of asylum law is such that it is essential to secure the services of a firm of immigration solicitors at the earliest opportunity so that they can present your case expertly on your behalf, as otherwise the claim will stand little chance of succeeding. Solicitors such as Duncan Lewis have great expertise in this area and will be able to smooth the Byzantine complexities of asylum law to a large degree and help you understand your options and the ramifications of any decisions you make. The Law Society will have all the contact information to hand.

Be ready to answer a range of probing questions by your solicitor as he or she prepares your case. They will need to know when you arrived in the UK and

 

 

 

Obtaining UK Visa or work permit is a Herculean task. The UK government has laid down stringent legal procedures and requires one to fulfil all the formalities in order to qualify for the UK visa and work permit. If you are interested in getting the UK visa or work permit, contact Duncan Lewis solicitors.

Duncan Lewis solicitors possess unmatchable knowledge about the UK immigration issues, visas, and work permits. They have extensive experience in preparing and submitting visa applications. Some of the visas that are being handled by the law firm include, ancestry visa, business visa, elderly dependant visa, highly skilled migrant programme, medical visa, holiday maker visa, spouse visa, student visa, visiting visa, Au-Pair visa, Ankara visa, and work permit.

Duncan Lewis & Co. has been awarded a Category 1 Franchise from the Legal Services Commission. The quality of their work is repeatedly demonstrated by the very high success rates being achieved by them in cases that they take on. By entrusting the task to the Duncan Lewis solicitors you can rest assured that your non-refundable visa application fee won’t go waste. In fact, you would get the most out of it since the immigration solicitors would get you the UK visa quickly and easily.

 

 

 

Duncan Lewis:Applications for asylum are made under the guidance and direction of an individual case worker who liaises with the applicant through the course of the process. Should it turn out that the application is unsuccessful, this case worker will tell the applicant whether he or she has a right to make an appeal against the decision and, if so, how this is to be done. A firm of immigration and asylum solicitors will usually become involved. Additionally, the case worker can, in some instances, deem it appropriate that the unsuccessful applicant nevertheless remain in the UK on humanitarian grounds.

Of the many thousands of asylum applications each year, typically about 17 per cent are granted, with an additional ten per cent of the applicants allowed to remain in the UK on various gro

 

 

 

Duncan Lewis:In some cases, foreign nationals may be subject to deportation from the UK. Deportation orders are a provision of UK immigration law that can be used to deal with foreign nationals under certain circumstances. When a deportation order is issued the individual will be removed forcibly from the UK, and may also be held in custody until they are removed. The individual to whom a deportation order is issued will not be able to return to the UK whilst it remains in force. This will replace any leave to remain that the individual had formerly obtained, such as a visa.

There are several reasons why a foreign national may be subject to a deportation order. The interests of the public good may be cited as the overriding reason by the Secretary of State, or they could be the partner or

 

 

 

Duncan Lewis:Whether or not you are allowed to take up work in the UK will largely be determined by where you have come from. People who are not British citizens or citizens of EEA (European Economic Area) countries will have to get a visa to enter the UK.

If you fall into this category, when you get your visa in your own country the staff at the British Overseas Mission there will clear you and stamp your passport with the clearance certificate. Once you arrive in the UK, there is a points-based system in operation which will determine the types of work that you are entitled to do. This applies to all non-EEA nationals and non-Swiss nationals. It may seem rather complicated at first, but it is actually straightforward and explains clearly what types of work can and cannot be undertaken by

 

 

 

This article considers the position where an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom may fail under the second limb of para 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules:



(1A) where ... material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application.

The introduction of new mandatory grounds for refusal has been a controversial area in immigration law, particularly because of the harsh construction which the courts have previously applied. The increasing length, detail and complexity of immigration application forms, has led inevitably to an increase in the number of applications rejected on the basis of incomplete information provided. Employers and skilled migrants should take exceptional care to avoid these pitfalls, and the protracted litigation which can follow.

Current authority



The Tribunal in FW (Paragraph 322 untruthful answer) Kenya UKUT [2010] 165 (IAC) considered the second limb of Paragraph 322 (1A) of the immigration rules, which is engaged when an Applicant fails to disclose a material fact in an Application. The Court of Appeal in AA Nigeria [2010] EWCA Civ 733 found that a false representation must involve an element of deceit, whether by the Applicant themselves or a third party acting on their behalf (see our previous article LINK). Whilst the Court in AA did not expressly consider the second limb, the reasoning which underpinned the Court's decision will, arguably, be equally relevant to cases of non disclosure. In this article we explore whether a finding of dishonest intent will be a pre requisite a finding that a material fact has not been disclosed. It should be noted that the decision in the Court of Appeal in AA was promulgated after the decision in FW, and the Upper Tribunal may have reached a different decision had the authority if AA been available to them.

The question then arises, what is actually material to an Application? The Upper Tribunal adopted a broad brush approach to the issue when the Appellant before them was found to have deliberately withheld convictions for driving with excess alcohol, in a mandatory field of an application form for an extension of leave to remain.

It is not for a person who has untruthfully answered a direct question in an application form to assert that the answer was not material in any event. If it was not material, it is difficult to see why the question should have been asked. There is no basis on which it can be said that in making a decision whether to grant leave in this category the Secretary of State was obliged to condone an offence of driving with excess alcohol;

Criticisms of this approach



(i) Policy considerations



It can be argued that this approach is unsatisfactory and lacks the necessary discrimination coined in the term "material". The Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDIs), Chapter 9, section 4.9.1, provide a useful case study illustrating an alternative definition of "material".

4.9.1 Scenario 2: Example of withheld information relevant to the decision



A person who has submitted an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain as a spouse has not declared they are in receipt of Child Benefit. Investigations reveal they are in receipt of child benefit.

On the Upper Tribunal's analysis, this application should fail simply as a consequence of the question at section 7.6 of FORM SET (M), which asks whether the Applicant or their partner are claiming specific benefits. One of those listed is Child Benefit. Surely, this question would not be asked if it was not material? The IDIs disagree.

Investigations reveal they are in receipt of Child Benefit but this is legitimate because they fall under one of the exceptions to "no recourse to public funds"

The Application cannot be refused under paragraph 322 (1A) because, had the applicant disclosed the fact they are receiving Child Benefit it would not have led to their application being refused.

Returning to the original wording of the rule, the first limb contemplates the existence of material and non material false representations by use of the words "whether or not material to the application". A representation will surely take the form of an answer to a question on an application form. By the Upper Tribunal's reasoning, immaterial representations would be non existent as all responses to mandatory fields on the application form would be material representations. However, this would render the sub paragraph's distinction in its treatment of a false representation and non disclosure meaningless.

It is therefore contended that a more suitable test of materiality, endorsed by the IDIs, can be put in the following question: If the withheld information had been disclosed, would this have led to the application being refused? If the answer to that question is no then the information was not material to the application.

(ii) Good Character



The Upper Tribunal appear to have had the nature of the Appellant's offence - driving while under the influence of excess alcohol - at the forefront of its consideration of his failure to disclose a past conviction. However, the general grounds for refusal in the Immigration Rules arguably provide ample scope for consideration of past criminality, where the appropriate level of severity is met.

Paragraph 245ZX(A) of the Immigration Rules states:

The applicant must not fall for refusal under the general grounds for refusal and must not be an illegal entrant

These are listed at paragraph 322 (2) – (11).

It is submitted that subsections (2) and (5) are prima facie the only subsections which are related to the Appellant's conviction. Subsection (2) repeats the Mandatory Ground for Refusal set at out at paragraph 322 (1A):

(5)the undesirability of permitting the person concerned to remain in the United Kingdom in the light of his character, conduct or associations or the fact that he represents a threat to national security;

Subsection (5) of paragraph 322 is considered at Chapter 9 Section 4 A of the IDIs, March 2009. This examines the threshold of seriousness which previous convictions should meet before a further grant of leave is refused. However, the burden of proof when relying on para 245X(a) rests on the Respondent. Therefore, it is for him to state in terms that this ground is relied on and explain why the Appellant would fall within subsection (5) of paragraph 322. This would also be a way for the Respondent to establish materiality for the purpose of paragraph 322 (1A): If this offence been disclosed it would have led to the Application not succeeding under the Immigration Rules.

In the case before the Tribunal in FW, subsection (5) of paragraph 322 was not relied upon by the Respondent and, therefore, the Tribunal's decision rested on a questionable interpretation of materiality turning on the information appertaining to a mandatory field of an application form.

(iii) Dishonesty



The Upper Tribunal found that the Appellant before it had deliberately withheld his previous conviction, and therefore practiced deception in his application. The tribunal considered this the exercise of deception was, in and of itself, a matter for the Secretary of State to weigh into the balance in an assessment of whether or not material facts had been disclosed. In particular it found that:

It may be therefore that a person who honestly admits an offence may be granted leave, whereas a person who untruthfully denies the same offence is properly refused leave.

The wording of the rule specifically refers to material facts not disclosed. It would be strange to argue that one of the material facts not disclosed was that the Applicant was practicing deception in their application. Deception is the motive behind the non disclosure of material facts, not a fact in and of itself. Moreover the exercise of deception will carry its own repercussions within the framework of the Rules, if the applicant is required to leave the UK and subsequently seeks entry clearance to re enter.

Article 8 issues



If the Upper Tribunal's definition of materiality is upheld, the Tribunal applying Paragraph 322 (1A), would still need to be mindful of the grave consequences which could follow under paragraph 320 (7B) including a ten year bar on applying for entry clearance.

In private life cases, it will be important to adopt a careful analysis of the seriousness of the non disclosure to the Application and set this against the interference which will follow for the applicant, if he is removed and prevented from re entering the UK for ten years. Moreover, it has been argued here that there is an absence of adequate discrimination in the Upper Tribunal interpretation of the word "material". If this point is arguable, then where an applicant withholds information which would otherwise not have been fatal to the application, the question of whether their removal will be pursuant to the maintenance of effective Immigration Control remains open.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

 

 

 

Those who deal regularly with the UK Border Agency will sadly be accustomed to receiving unfair decisions, which can have a devastating impact upon the lives of their clients, no matter how blameless they may be. Sometimes UKBA act in a manner that is designed to avoid an appeal against the decision until the applicant has returned overseas. What remedies are available in these circumstances?

The Court of Appeal has considered these questions in an important judgment: Anwar and Others V Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1275. Duncan Lewis acted for the second Appellant of three. This article considers the implications for appeals to the Tribunal and other remedies.

The Background facts:


In two of the cases the Appellants were foreign national students; fee- payers who effectively subsidise higher education for British students. In both cases they were initially studying at Colleges that were 'approved' by UKBA – i.e. on the register of training and education providers (which is now a requirement for leave as a student). In both cases the colleges which they attended were later removed from the register, and they commenced studies at other colleges in consequence. In both cases the UKBA later took a decision to remove them from the UK on the basis that they had obtained their leave to remain in the UK by deception.

It should be noted that in the case of Ms. Pengeyo she had herself contacted UKBA for advice and had been advised to find a new college, while Mr. Anwar had become dissatisfied with his college and left it before it was even removed from the register. Both appealed the decision to remove them from the UK and, unsurprisingly perhaps in both cases the Immigration Judges separately found that 'Ms Pengeyo had been guilty of no deception at all' and that there was no basis for the allegation against Mr Anwar either.

Jurisdiction:


In both cases the argument in later tribunal proceedings, and again in the Court of Appeal, turned on the question of jurisdiction. The Secretary of State argued that the setting of removal directions was an immigration decision that could only be appealed out-of-country. In both cases the Immigration Judge at first instance had rejected that submission, but in each case that decision had been overturned in later proceedings in the Tribunal. In both cases the initial Immigration Judge had relied upon a decision CD (India) [2008] UKAIT 00055 that essentially treated the setting of removal directions against a person with leave as a curtailment of that leave (and therefore appealable in-country), whereas later it was realised that subsequent authority Saleh [2008] EWHC 3196 Admin had held otherwise, and the appeals had been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal first clarified that an apparent bar to an appeal is no bar to the lodging of the appeal. The Court pointed out that to hold otherwise would not allow for consideration as to whether the bar actually exists – e.g. if there is a dispute about whether the Appellant is truly outside of the country.

In a second step of equal importance the Court of Appeal held that the lack of jurisdiction must be specifically pleaded and drew an analogy with a failure on the part of a Defendant to take a limitation point in tort proceedings:

Any apparently absolute bar to justice has to be scrutinised very carefully. The one contained in the 2002 Act is not of the kind which operates independently of the will of either party so as to bind the tribunal regardless. It offers a point which can be but need not be taken. In the present two cases, it was taken. (para 23)

The Court was careful to underline however that this only arises where the tribunal would have had jurisdiction, but for the limitation. A failure to take a point cannot give a Court jurisdiction to decide a point that lies entirely outside its limits. Thus the third appellant, who was attempting to appeal a decision that did not give rise to a right of appeal at all, was unsuccessful.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal emphasised that, in the case of Mr. Anawr, as he had pleaded his case under article 8 as well as under the immigration rules, there was jurisdiction to hear his appeal in-country in any event on that ground, and that had the tribunal gone on to do so:

'the injustice of the decision that he had been guilty of deception – injustice both in the way it was reached and in the absence of any evidence to support it – [would almost inevitably] have weighed decisively in the scales if and when the proportionality of removal came to be decided.' (para 16)

Other remedies:


Duncan Lewis had conduct of this case from the Court of Appeal stage. It was swiftly realised that, despite apparent injustice, the appeal could fail on the jurisdiction point. We therefore lodged protective proceedings in the Administrative Court. Sedley LJ commented:

In the judicial review proceedings brought by Ms Pengeyo ... a challenge was made to the decision of the Home Secretary to use the deception route, enabling her effectively to stifle any appeal, rather than the variation route carrying a right of in-country appeal. Judge Thornton QC, rightly in my judgment, granted permission to argue this. Had it been sought, permission would also have properly been granted to argue that the election of the Home Office, having used the deception route, to take the out-of-country point in order to stifle an appeal was a serious abuse of power. Once it is established that the point is good only when taken, to take it in order to prevent the exposure of a shameful decision – the effective criminalising and enforced removal of an innocent person without either worthwhile evidence or the opportunity to answer – is without doubt justiciable by way of judicial review. (para 24)

There will be many applicants and representatives heartened by this resounding support for these challenges as not all unfair decisions are appealable. This is all the more serious given the quality of decision making by the UKBA – as specifically underlined by the Court of Appeal:

'... it is right to flag up a concern which all the members of the court share that, on the evidence before us, the powers of one of the great offices of state appear to have been so misused as to rob the successive administrative decisions of legal authority. We wish this to be brought to the Home Secretary's attention.' (para 25)

 

 

 

Part V of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Insolvency Act 1986 gives an applicant the right to apply for a debt relief order ('DRO').

Section 251(A) of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides:



"An individual who is unable to pay his debts may apply for an order under this Part ('a debt relief order') to be made in respect of his qualifying debts."

It is intended to give debt relief to people in England and Wales who owe relatively little money, have little or no disposable income and no assets to repay what they owe and cannot afford to make themselves bankrupt. A DRO has implications different to that of a person subject to a bankruptcy order. Most importantly, one is to obtain protection form creditors, whereas the other is to preserve assets for a bankrupt's creditors.

An applicant must satisfy the following criteria to apply for a DRO, the applicant must:



be unable to pay his/her debts
have debts of less than £15,000 and be able to provide details of his/her secured and unsecured debts
have available income of less than £50 a month
have assets worth less than £300 or less including money in bank accounts or building societies.
The applicant must not:

be an undischarged bankrupt;
have petitioned for his own bankruptcy;
be subject to a creditors' petition for bankruptcy;
be currently involved in an Individual Voluntary Arrangement
be subject to a Bankruptcy Restriction Order.
Section 251G provides:

"(1) A moratorium commences on the effective date for a debt relief order in relation to each qualifying debt specified in the order ('a specified qualifying debt').

(2) During the moratorium, the creditor to whom a specified qualifying debt is owed -

(a) has no remedy in respect of the debt, and

(b) may not -

(i) commence a creditor's petition in respect of the debt, or

(ii)otherwise commence any action or other legal proceedings against the debtor for the debt, except with the permission of the court and on such terms as the court may impose.

(5) Nothing in this section affects the right of a secured creditor of the debtor to enforce his security."

The recent test case of R (Cooper and Payne) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] EWHC 2162 (Admin) addressed the question of whether recovery of 'accidental' - as opposed to fraudulently obtained - overpayments of benefits during a DRO moratorium was unlawful. It should be noted that the circumstances of the two Claimants were different: one had failed to declare a change in circumstances; the omission on her part led to overpayment of benefits, the other had received a social fund loan but had not repaid the loan.

'Qualifying debts' for the purposes of a DRO are debts for liquidated sums payable immediately or in the future and which are not 'excluded debts'. Overpaid social security benefits do not fall within the categories of excluded debts set out in the Insolvency Rules, rule 5A.2. The excluded debts are secured debts, court fines, child support and maintenance payments, student loans, any debts incurred outside England and Wales and benefit overpayments obtained through fraud.

To come to a conclusion therefore, both the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Insolvency Act 1986 had to be read together; it was decided that the right to recover overpayment of social security benefits did not prevent a debtor's right to be relieved from his/her liability during the moratorium as per the insolvency legislation.

In his judgment, Cranston J held that:



(1) In the absence of any indication to the contrary, "remedy" should be given its normal meaning to include methods of self-help such as abatement and set-off, and the Secretary of State was effectively exercising a statutory right of set-off. Making of a debt relief order precludes the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from recovering overpaid benefits or social fund loans by making deductions from ongoing entitlement to benefit, because in doing so the Secretary of State would be exercising a "remedy in respect of the debt" within the meaning of section 251G(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

(2) The 'net entitlement principle' under which, prior to consideration of insolvency law, a claimant was only entitled to receive an amount of benefit net of deductions, did not detract from that conclusion and did not, properly understood, preclude section 251G(2)(a) from having the effect contended for by the claimants. The Secretary of State would be obtaining an unfair preference to the prejudice of the general body of creditors by making the deductions.

(3) Given the differences between the DRO schemes and the differences in language used, it was not possible to attribute an intention by Parliament, in enacting the DRO legislation in 2007, to adopt the conclusion in the cases of Mulvey and Taylor (1997) BPIR 505 QBD that bankruptcy left the Secretary of State's right of recovery unaffected prior to discharge.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State's continued withholding of benefits was found to be unlawful.

The Secretary of State was given permission to appeal. On 12 August 2010 the Court of Appeal granted DWP a stay of the judgment, so presently the DWP and local authorities can recover overpayments. The DWP have also confirmed that they attended a hearing on 20 October 2010 but as yet judgment has not been handed down.

Although Cranston J stated that public policy issues were irrelevant to the legal issues before him, it will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeal will consider the implications of this case in light of the crisis in public finances.

Furthermore, the right to receive benefits is still in place during the moratorium. Whilst it is one thing to hold that a loan applied for and granted by the Secretary of State should be treated as any other loan, different issues arise in the other case. Is the right to be released from recovery of overpayment of benefits, where the cause of the overpayment is the fault of the debtor fair, given that the overpayed state benefits have been claimed at the expense of the taxpayer?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

 

 

 

Duncan Lewis is one of the largest and most respected Immigration Departments in the UK. Our broad knowledge and vast experience in general immigration, business immigration and asylum law is second to none.

The Duncan Lewis extensive Immigration Team consists of specialised staff providing help in a variety of different languages.

All Solicitors and caseworkers dealing with public funded immigration work at Duncan Lewis complete the Law Society’s Immigration & Asylum Accreditation Scheme, which is mandatory to perform immigration related work for clients.

Duncan Lewis offer our clients a personal service at very affordable rates for advice on private immigration related matters.

The Duncan Lewis team deal with issues where Public Funding (formerly Legal Aid) may be available, for example, applications for political asylum.

The Company can offer assistance with General Immigration, Refugee & Asylum Immigration including Detention Centres, Work Permits and Visas and Business Immigration. We have included some examples of the types of immigration matters we can assist with under each main category.

General Immigration



Duncan Lewis solicitors can assist clients with the following types of legal matters under General Immigration.
• Deportation/Illegal Entry
• EEA Association Agreement Applications • Entry Clearance
• EU Residence Applications
• Outside the Rules Applications
• Family Reunions
• Judicial Review
• Married and Unmarried Partner Concession Application and Appeals
• Naturalisation
• Overstaying or illegally in UK
• Port Emergencies • Sponsorship
• Spouses & Partners
• Students
• Travel Document Applications

Refugee & Asylum Law



Duncan Lewis solicitors assist and represent asylum seekers from all over the world, at all legal stages from interviews to appeals. Our experienced team assists a variety of clients including children; mental health patients; HIV/AIDS patients and victims of torture who require expert representation. We conduct:

• Asylum Applications, Inter- views and Appeals to Tribunal and High Court
• Bail Applications
• Detention Centre Visits
• Applications for Exceptional Leave to Remain
• High Court Judicial Review Applications
• Human Rights Appeals
• National Asylum Support Service (NASS) Appeals

Visas & Work Permits



Duncan Lewis solicitors have extensive experience of preparing and submitting visa applications. Examples of visas are listed below.

• Ancestry Visa
• Ankara Agreement
• Au-pair Visa
• Business Visa
• Elderly Dependant Visa
• Extending or varying a visa
• Highly Skilled Migrant Programme
• Holiday Maker Visa
• Medical Visa
• Sector Based Scheme
• Spouse Visa
• Student Visa
• Visiting Visa
• Work Permit

Duncan Lewis & Co. has been awarded a Category 1 Franchise from the Legal Services Commission. The quality of our work is repeatedly demonstrated by the very high success rates achieved in cases that we take on. We strive to make our services as accessible as possible to everyone including taking on some cases on a pro-bono basis where legal aid is not available.

To book an appointment please contact Duncan Lewis New Client Co-ordinators on 0800 740 8081.

Duncan Lewis has offices in the following locations in London and the Home Counties:-

Duncan Lewis – Clapham Junction
Duncan Lewis – Dalston
Duncan Lewis – Harrow
Duncan Lewis – New Cross
Duncan Lewis – Romford
Duncan Lewis – Shepherds Bush

For more information please visit the Duncan Lewis home page at www.duncanlewis.co.uk

Duncan Lewis is the trading name of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Limited.

 

 

 

We are one of London's fastest growing firms of solicitors, with six offices in and around London. We deal in a wide range of legal services that caters for clients on a public funding or private fee basis. Duncan Lewis is privileged to have several franchises from the Legal Services Commission.

We look to recruit dedicated and talented employees in both legal and non-legal capacities, and we are always interested to receive applications from quality candidates, whether experienced or novice. If you can demonstrate a strong commitment to the areas of law provided by the firm, and you are keen to build a career with us, please email your details and CV to recruitment@duncanlewis.com, or telephone and ask to speak with the Recruitment Coordinator.


Job Description:




Duncan Lewis & Co Solicitors remains one of the most successful legal firms in the South East. We are LEXCEL, Gold IIP accredited and a LSC Category 1 firm, with franchises in 9 areas of law, employing 400 staff with established offices in Hackney, Clapham Junction, Harrow, Shepherds Bush and Lewisham. We are currently authorised to register 68 training contracts with the Law Society.

We are currently seeking to recruit Law Society Level 1 & 2 Caseworkers/Paralegals under the Immigration and Asylum Accreditation Scheme to assist the Immigration Department in meeting the unprecedented demand due to the recent changes within the Legal Industry (All Offices).

Successful candidates must be registered or in the process of registering with the Law Society and be able to present their Immigration Accreditation Certificate upon request.

This position does not require a practicing certificate but under current SRA rules applicants who have been admitted to the roll must be in possession of a valid practicing certificate in order to undertake legal services.

We take high pride in our commitment to Equal opportunities and Diversity (the diversity of the communities we represent to reflect at all levels within our workforce).

We are positive about discrimination and guarantee an interview for candidates who declare a disability and meet the essential requirements for the post.

Applications must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. on 1 December 2010. Applications submitted after this time may not be considered.

Key Skills Required:


Level 1 & 2 Law Society Immigration Accreditation

Office:


Harrow, Shepherds Bush and Dalston

Salary


Competitive


Job Type


Permanent




 

 

 

Get UK visa & work permits quickly and easily with the help of Duncan lewis



Every year, hundreds and thousands of people apply for the UK visa to live and work there. The UK is one such place that has tremendous opportunities for individual job seekers and business owners who wish to start up their private business venture in this thriving world economy.

However, getting UK visa is not that easy. One needs to fulfil several formalities in order to get the visa and work permit. If you are looking forward to get UK work permit, it is advisable to avail the services of a renowned agency or firm that offers immigration related services. Such firms have expertise and knowledge to handle immigration related formalities and help their clients get UK visa and work permit in a quick and efficient manner.

One such firm that you can consider for immigration and work permits is Duncan Lewis. It is one of the leading Immigration Departments in the UK with vast knowledge and great experience in general immigration, business immigration and asylum law.

At Duncan Lewis, you can get legal advice and assistance with all matters related to General Immigration, Refugee & Asylum Immigration including Detention Centres, Work Permits and Visas and Business Immigration.

If you are looking for General immigration, Duncan Lewis immigration solicitors can help you with all types of legal matters related to Deportation/Illegal Entry, EEA, Association Agreement Applications , Entry Clearance, EU Residence Applications, Outside the Rules Applications, Family Reunions, Judicial Review, Married and Unmarried Partner Concession Application, and Appeals, Naturalisation, Overstaying or illegally in UK, Port Emergencies, Sponsorship, Spouses & Partners, Students, and Travel Document Applications.

The Duncan Lewis immigration solicitors are efficient in getting various types of visas, such as Ancestry Visa, Business Visa , Elderly Dependant Visa , Highly Skilled Migrant Programme , Medical Visa, Student Visa , Visiting Visa , Work Permit, and many others.

As well as General Immigration and Visa and Work Permit, Duncan Lewis solicitors provide legal advice and representation to asylum seekers from all over the world. The solicitors offer complete support at all legal stages of Asylum immigration right from interviews to appeals.

All immigration services including visas and work permits are available at affordable rates at Duncan Lewis. The best thing is that the Duncan Lewis immigration solicitors are easily accessible as they have offices in various places in London like Dalston, Clapham Junction, Harrow, New Cross, Romford, Shepherds Bush, and Bedford.

To know in detail about the Duncan Lewis Work permit procedure, its team of solicitors, and more, you may log on to www.duncanlewisimmigration.co.uk

 

 

 

If you have used our service, we would like you to spend a few moments to comment upon the service you have received from our lawyers at Duncan Lewis. Please do not include any personal and confidential information about your case. Please however comment upon the service received from the solicitor(s) who assisted you and whether you were satisfied with the service that was provided to you at Duncan Lewis. Do also mention the department and name of the solicitor(s) who advised and assisted you. Any suggestions for improvement of our service will also be helpful. Thank you for your time.