The Home Office has overturned its decision to refuse a Russian man entry to the UK to see his newborn grandson after it did not believe his 43-year marriage to an EU citizen was real.

An email overturning the decision did not give any new information for why Stepan Polyakov, 68, was denied a permit last month, despite appearing to have correctly followed the application process.

When The Independent raised the case with the Home Office in September, a spokesperson said they had requested further documentation to review Mr Polyakov’s case. After that documentation was received, he was granted a permit.

“All UK visa applications are considered on their individual merits and in line with UK immigration rules,” a spokesperson said.

“The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that they satisfy the immigration rules.”

It is not clear how Mr Polyakov failed to satisfy immigrant rules, as applicants are recommended in the government’s official advice to send a copy of their marriage certificate as evidence. Mr Polyakov sent this and a supporting letter from his daughter, who lives in the UK, as evidence of his relationship.

However, in his refusal letter, an official wrote: “You have not provided any photographic evidence of your wedding day. This leads me to doubt that the marriage actually took place, as claimed.”

Mr Polyakov said he was not asked to submit any wedding photographs during his application.

The refusal letter also directly contradicted the Home Office’s guidance, which says in cases where a marriage of convenience is suspected, “the burden of proof is high” and rests with the government official.

A photo of Stepan Polyakov and his wife Anna, taken in the 1970s (Dmitry Adamskiy)

After hearing the decision had been overturned, Dmitry Adamskiy, Mr Polyakov’s son-in-law and the father of his grandson, said: “We are very happy that the situation is resolved and my father-in-law can visit us.

“We are very grateful to The Independent for the timely intervention that allowed the Home Office to set things right rather promptly.”

In a Facebook post, he added: “Needless to say, I am not happy that the current system leaves no other option to quickly fix such obvious errors for people who are less lucky than us and whose story does not reach the papers.”

Chai Patel, a legal policy director for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, who followed Mr Polyakov’s case, agreed the decision failed to address problems with the government’s immigration policies.

“While we are very pleased for Mr Polyakov and his family, thousands of others who are not fortunate to get media attention continue to have their lives destroyed by Home Office incompetence and cruelty,” he said.

“We cannot keep operating an immigration lottery where those who get their cases picked up by the press may get a humane and sensible decision, while countless others are ignored.

“Home Office decisions are overturned on appeal over 50 per cent of the time. This shameful situation must end, and we need a complete overhaul of the immigration system and the Home Office to fix it.”