OISC L2 Practice Question - Derek & Miguel - with answers
The document is a practice question for OISC Level 2 immigration advisers, created by Refugee Action and authored by Mohammad Amin Nejat. It presents a client scenario: Derek, a British retired conveyancing solicitor, seeks advice about his partner Miguel, a Chilean national who arrived on a skilled‑work route, has held indefinite leave to remain for 14 years, and was recently convicted of fraud. Miguel’s indefinite leave was cancelled, he was placed in immigration detention and served with deportation paperwork. The paper asks candidates to (1) assess the lawfulness of the Home Office’s actions and identify the likely paperwork and required response; (2) outline possible grounds for resisting deportation and what must be proved; (3) consider whether successful resistance could restore indefinite leave; and (4) discuss a policy flaw in the rules. Model answers are provided, citing specific Immigration Rules (SUI 5.2, 13.2.3(a), 13.2.6, 13.3.2), statutes (UK Borders Act 2007 ss 32, 36; Immigration Act 1971 s 3(5)(a); ECHR Art 8), and case law (Rhuppiah [2018] UKSC 58). The document also notes mark allocations, bonus points, and a brief bonus question about the rules’ inconsistency.
Topics
Client Scenario: Derek & Miguel – Facts and Context
A concise outline of the parties, their relationship, Miguel’s immigration history, criminal conviction, detention, cancellation of indefinite leave, and receipt of deportation papers.
Assessing Lawfulness of Home Office Action
Analysis of whether the Home Office’s cancellation of indefinite leave and detention are lawful, referencing Immigration Rules SUI 5.2, UK Borders Act 2007 s 32, s 36, Immigration Act 1971 s 3(5)(a), and the public‑good test.
Identifying the Deportation Paperwork and Required Response
Explanation that Miguel is likely served with a Stage 1 decision letter (notice of intention to deport) and possibly a Section 120/One‑Stop notice, together with the 28‑day representation deadline and the need to submit family‑life evidence.
Grounds to Resist Deportation under the Immigration Rules
Discussion of possible resistance routes: private‑life (Art 8) arguments, relationship‑based protection under Rule 13.2.3(a) and 13.2.6, evidential requirements (genuine, subsisting relationship, no precarious status at start), and the relevance of Rhuppiah [2018] UKSC 58.
Prospects for Regaining Indefinite Leave to Remain
Evaluation of whether successful resistance could restore ILR, noting that the likely outcome is a limited permission to stay (e.g., 30 months under Rule 13.3.2) rather than full ILR.
Bonus Policy Critique: Flaw in the ‘Precarious Status’ Requirement
A short commentary on the arbitrary nature of the rule that the relationship must not have begun while the applicant was in a precarious immigration status, highlighting its unfair impact on settled partners.