Wang and Chin (extension of time for appealing)

“61. Although I find the first appellant to be generally credible I do not believe that she knowing that she was permitted to work for MHL Trading Limited, did not understand that she could [not] go off and work for another company without informing the Home Office. The work permit plainly enabled her to work for MHL Trading Limited. If there was no limitation on the employment then the work permit would be issued on the basis that she would be employed for the next five years. I find that she may have convinced herself of this situation and relied on legal advice that she was given on the basis that she was employed full time by MHL Company Limited. She was advised as is set out in the MacDonald's extract that she could undertake supplementary work not work instead of her employment with MHL Limited. The picture is of the first appellant burying her head in the sand until the time came to apply for indefinite leave to remain. As soon as she was placed on unpaid leave she should have contacted the Home Office under the terms of her permit. Furthermore she earned a substantial amount with WEA and she was not receiving any income from MHL and had not received income since July 2009. She was clearly fit for work from November 2009 and indeed undertook work other than with MHL from that date until her work permit expired.

…

65. In this case also the first appellant breached the conditions of her work permit leave from 2009 onwards by not informing the respondent that she was no longer employed by MHL Company Limited and was working for WEA. I accept that in 2009 between March and November she was very unwell but once she had recovered and continued working for WEA on a regular basis she should have reported the fact of the change of employer to the respondent. I therefore find that she and her husband cannot benefit from the long residence rule as she has not had continuous lawful residence in the UK for a period of ten years”.

“68. The issue here is whether the appellants have established a private life in the UK and once again it cannot be denied that they have been here for a period of ten years and have built up relationships, friends and work in the UK. There is supporting evidence in respect of this from Mr Steve Marshall and Mrs Lee which shows that the appellants have been industrious during their time spent in the UK and have undertaken a substantial amount of volunteering in support of the Chinese community in the UK. I have no doubt that they have worked hard and contributed to their local community. The first appellant has told me that their life is now in the UK and that Malaysia seems a distant place to them. I find that they have established a private life in the UK.

69. The following questions in Razgar I answer in the affirmative.

70. In respect of proportionality I have to weigh in the balance those factors in favour of the appellants in particular whether it is necessary and proportionate to remove the appellants from the UK when they are so well established here. I have sympathy for the appellants who no doubt consider their breaches in continuous lawful residence were not of their making and the breach of the conditions of the first appellant's work permit occurred because of the first appellant's illness and then the unfair treatment by the Li family as a result of her illness. All of which are not disputed by the...