'Hardworking' team head Vinita Templeton is 'very knowledgeable and has a good relationship with Home Office employees', which she puts to use across a range of matters, including urgent and difficult judicial review claimant matters.Legal 500 2021 Edition.
Vinita is a Recommended Lawyer in the 2021 edition of The Legal 500.Legal 500 2021 Edition.
"Efficient, patient and reliable' team head Vinita Templeton excels at judicial review matters, and is regularly successful for private- and publicly-funded clients in cases where appeal rights had previously been exhausted."Legal 500 2020 Edition.
Vinita is a Recommended Lawyer in the 2020 edition of The Legal 500.
Winner of the Special Recognition Award at the Wales Legal AwardsWales Legal Award 2019 Edition.
Vinita is ranked as a Leading Individual in the 2019 edition of The Legal 500 for her Human Resources: Immigration work in Cardiff.
"Experienced and knowledgeable, team head Vinita Templeton displays compassion when needed but also provides straightforward answers and actions when required"
"Ranked as a leading lawyer in her field, the empathetic, intelligent and professional Vinita Templeton has a well rounded knowledge of UK immigration laws."Legal 500 2017 Edition.
Vinita is 'deeply committed to her client's interests' and is 'a specialist in immigration judicial review claims'."Legal 500 2016 Edition.
HAA (s.72: overseas conviction) Somalia  UKUT 366 (IAC) (10 October 2012) - This was an Upper Tribunal matter. The case was reported on the basis that in cases where s 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is invoked, it is important to see that the specific requirements of that section have been complied with. In particular, if the conviction was outside the United Kingdom, there must be either proof of the offence and sentence (s 72(3)), or certification under s 72(4). It does not appear that the statute requires certification to be in the letter of refusal.
Rajbhandari (PBS: funds - available) Nepal  UKUT 364 (IAC) (08 October 2012) - This was an appeal before the Upper Tribunal relating to a challenge against a refusal decision in respect of a Tier 1 (Post-study Work) Migrant. The case involved a consideration of the availability of funds in PBS cases. In this matter it was held that the notion that funds only need to be “available” to an applicant is, on the true construction of Appendix C of the Immigration Rules, applicable only to student applications.