We monitor national research and from this evidence conclude that much of the public’s unrest about Asylum seekers and foreign nationals is the perception that this group mainly consists of single men which is seen as a threat by some. Further to this , as outlined in the Home office research it is shown that family groups become more settled, more quickly which leads to better social cohesion and a reduction from the apprehension expressed by other city dwellers.

A significant part of our work in supporting the positive aspects of immigration is that of ensuring that stable family units can become settled in our communities, become established and add to our local economies.

This work requires us to ensure that all of those who aspire to achieve a settled status receive fair and equitable treatment under the law. Such a case was that of Client Y who wished to unite with his family. We represented Client Y, a 25 year old from Zimbabwe who was refused entry clearance to reunite with his mother Z and father X.

Father X was granted refugee status in the UK in May 2004. Immigration Rules provides that the spouse and minor children of the refugee may enter the UK for the purposes of family reunion.

Mother Z was granted entry clearance, but as Client Y was over 18 years of age, his application was refused on the basis that there were no compelling circumstances to allow entry. This was in spite of the fact that medical reports showed Client Y suffered from kerataconus, a medical condition that meant his eyesight deteriorates in time and was termed as ‘functionally blind’ by his practitioner.

Client Y was placed under temporary care of a family relative, who himself had a family of three, with another baby on the way in 2 months. This hardly left the time to provide Y with the care that he requires. The recent redundancy also meant the moving of the family to find better employment, involving a long journey and moving to a new home which was as yet unconfirmed.

The Entry Clearance Officer’s (ECO) refusal letter was based on misconception of information presented by our client and it was clear that neither due attention nor consideration was paid on the medical reports. It would be hardly practical to expect Y with his medical condition to remain to be under their continued care.

We successfully applied for funding from the Legal Services Commission finance Client Y’s appeal and instructed a barrister to represent. We also obtained updated medical reports on Y’s condition. Father X, as the sponsor of Y’s entry clearance appeal, gave evidence in court. As a result, Client Y’s appeal was successful and he is making his arrangements to join his parents in the UK.