Visa refusal litigation

The law firm represented a foreign client seeking to quash a Lithuanian embassy’s refusal to issue a national visa. The dispute arose because the client – intending to study in Lithuania at the University of Health Sciences - had received an adverse decision that a national visa would not be issued. The decision was based on the facts that:

- there were reasonable doubts about the authenticity of the submitted documents, 

- the accuracy of the content, the provided data containing signs of forgery, as well as 

- the threat of illegal migration to the Republic of Lithuania. 

It was noted by the embassy that no important arguments were submitted during the interview at the embassy regarding the selection criteria for studies in Lithuania. Bank had not been legalized or notarized. The applicant himself had no work experience, all relatives and relatives live in the United Kingdom. 

The applicant by filing an appeal to Vilnius Administrative Court stated that the legislation did not provide for the obligation to legalize bank statements, all the documents submitted were accurate, correct and true. The choice to study in Lithuania was also due to the reasonable price of studies and high quality of studies, which are valued abroad. According to the applicant, she had close links with the country of origin, where she co-owned real estate and received rent. 

However, the court of the first instance (Vilnius administrative court) took the view that the issuing authority had given a detailed assessment of the applicant's request by interviewing her during the interview. 

The applicant lodged an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania stating that the Lithuanian authority had provided only part of the evidence submitted with the application for a national visa. It follows that Vilnius administrative court in this case assessed certain evidence which was not included in the case file material. According to the applicant, the court was unable to resolve the case objectively and violated its rights concluding that the documents showed certain signs of forgery. 

This case study confirms that the court decision may not contain certain hidden arguments, not based on the facts. The principle of immediacy also applies, according to which the court must directly examine all evidence in the case when considering the case. It was concluded by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania that the court of the first instance violated applicant’s rights by failing to examine all evidence, and the case was re-assigned to the court of first instance.

Back to the news list