01 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can hep - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342
⦁ Visitor visa may be included in the total time to qualify for Settlement under the 10 year Long Residence Rule
⦁ How does the UK immigration law defines "the date of the application" ?
The answer is in the Paragraph 34G of the Rules which states:
Date an application (or variation of an application) for leave to remain is made
34G. For the purposes of these rules, the date on which an application (or a variation of application in accordance with paragraph 34E) is made is:
(i) where the application form is sent by post by Royal Mail, the date of posting as shown on the tracking information provided by Royal Mail or, if not tracked, by the postmark date on the envelope; or
(ii) where the application is made on a paper application form and is submitted in person, the date on which it is received at a Home Office premium service centre; or
(iii) where the paper application form is sent by courier, or other postal services provider, the date on which it is delivered to the Home Office; or
(iv) where the application is made via the online application process, the date on which the online application is submitted whether or not a subsequent appointment is made at a Home Office premium service centre.
03 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can hep - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342
⦁ A Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) main applicant may, subject, to meeting the relevant Rules, apply for Settlement (ILR) in the UK via the accelerated route in 3 years. At the same time, it appears, on the basis of the current Rules, the family members of that Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) may only apply for Settlement in the UK having completed the 5 year period of residence in the UK as dependents of that Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) main applicant
⦁ EEA National children born in the UK whose parents obtain Permanent Residence after their birth need to register as British citizens in order to become British citizens
⦁ Retained Right of Residence application when the former EEA national spouse refuses to provide evidence of his/her employment
We recently had an interesting and successful case, when the client was granted Permanent Residence status in the UK despite his ex-EEA spouse refusing to provide evidence of her employment during the divorce. We used the spouse's public Facebook and LinkedIn posts about her jobs and the UK BA accepted it. Nothing is impossible with the Legal Centre, as we say
⦁ Settlement (ILR) applications - does the applicant need to satisfy the same (strict) good character requirements as for British Citizenship?
Apparently not, but there are certain suitability requirements in the Immigration Rules
The violence in Libya has reached such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a returning civilian would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to a threat to his life or person.
UK Visas and Immigration has issued new operating standards and guidance on pre-departure accommodation for families reflecting its relocation from Cedars to Tinsley House.
⦁ Settlement for an adult relative aged 18 years to join a British citizen in the UK - is it all possible ?
Potentially - yes under the Appendix FM - Adult Dependent Relatives. And yet it is worth mentioning that apart from showing that the parties are related as claimed, the Sponsor is a British citizen, finances and accommodation etc, the applicant shall also show for example, the trigger for the so-called medical dependency. The such an applicant needs to satisfy is different. The Applicant will probably only succeed outside the Immigration Rules. For example, adult siblings would need to show something more than normal emotional ties per the Court of Appeal case in "Kugathas".
"From the 29 May 2017, it will no longer be necessary for customers applying for UK settlement visas to submit their supporting documents during their VAC appointment. Instead, supporting documentation should be sent directly to UKVI in Sheffield, UK by post (full postal address is below). From 29 June 2017, supporting documents will no longer be accepted at Visa Application Centre in Tel Aviv.
When to submit the documents
You or your representative/sponsor should send all supporting documents within 20 working days of the biometric enrolment for standard fee applications and within 10 working days for Priority Visa Service applications. Please note that any delays in submitting these documents could lead to a delay in the consideration of your application.
Where to submit
Please send to the following address:
UKVI
PO Box 3468
Sheffield, UK
S3 8WA"
Generally, an overstay up to 14 days may be accepted by the UK BA provided there was a very, very good reason for it
⦁ A person whose appeal is pending consideration by the court (and that person has a Section 3D leave at the moment) cannot usually make a fresh application to the UK BA
⦁ Can a child stateless by “choice” be registered as a British citizen?
Under the British Nationality Act 1981, a child who is born in the UK and is (and always has been) stateless is entitled to register as a British citizen. See Schedule 2, Paragraph 3.
In MK (A Child By Her Litigation Friend CAE), R (On the Application Of) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1365 (Admin) (14 June 2017), the High Court considered whether the definition of ‘stateless’ in this context includes those who do not automatically acquire nationality by the operation of their own national law, but to whom it is open to acquire such nationality by registration or similar process should they chose to do so.
Following a seven-day hearing in the High Court, Mr Felix Wamala, a Ugandan national, was awarded £48,000 in damages for the actions of private security guards contracted by the Home Office in seeking to remove him from the UK. This is the case of Wamala v Tascor Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1461. The judgment is a mammoth one, weighing in at 558 paragraphs plus annexes.
⦁ Interesting Court of Appeal decision - can a person born in the UK be deported from them UK ? See www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/236.html
This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal dismissing the Appellant's appeal against a decision to deport him to Nigeria. The central feature of the case is that he has lived in the UK since birth and has never been to Nigeria and has no substantial links with that country.
Note that the financial requirement still has to be met by those applying for Settlement if their partner visas were issued post July 2012 under the Appendix FM ("the new Rules")
⦁ The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/756), 17 July 2017 and letter from the Lord O’Shaughnessy, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health (Lords) undated but sent 17 July 2017 : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/756/pdfs/uksi_20170756_en.pdf
Into effect 21 August 2017 and 23 October 2017, with up front payment for services that are not urgent or immediately necessary and extending the range of providers of NHS-funded services who must make and recover charges for relevant services from an “overseas visitor” from 23 October 2017.
Amend the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/238) which provide for the making and recovery of charges for relevant services provided under the National Health Service Act 2006 to certain persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. When an NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust determines that a person is an overseas visitor, it must record that fact and whether the person is exempt from charges against that person’s “consistent identifier” (see regulation 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consistent Identifier) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1439). Refunds are dealt with.
Lord O’Shaughnessy’s letter recalls the government’s December 2016 promise to amend the 2015 regulations ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’ to provide that all asylum seekers whose claims have failed and are supported by the Home Office under any provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 be exempt from the charge, not just those supported under s 95 or s 4(2) of that Act. His letter explains that the government has reneged on that promise because the support scheme is about to change, and it has decided that it would be better to amend the 2015 regulations when the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 are commenced ‘to reduce confusion for NHS decision-makers’ (who are no doubt quite confused enough already). No hint is given as to when the support provisions of the Act will come into force. Instead, the only change to regulation 15 effected by these regulations is to make explicit that dependants of persons exempted are exempt. The exemption for persons supported under s 95 is to be retained. There is a promise/warning that at the time when the regulation 15 changes are made, other changes could also be made.
EEA applications and intended changes
⦁ EEA applications delays
The delays are simply due to the amount of people applying, according to the UK BA.To tackle the increased number of applications, the Home Office has recruited more staff. Initially, this area of the department had 390 staff, now around 600, and they are planning to reach about 800. Staff are covering two shifts a day. Additional shifts have also been added, including evenings and weekends. They are planning to acquire more staff accommodation. The Home Office is aware that the process that people go through to get Permanent Residence is cumbersome. It was always a slow process, which has been made slower by the influx of applications.
⦁ EEA applications - EEA passports
Why are not EEA passports returned when they are sent off as part of a non-EEA family member application ? The response from Home Office is that it is because the passport is seen as a ‘supporting document’, rather than an identify document.
⦁ On-line EEA applications forms still have some errors
The guidance needs to make it clear that you only need to prove five years. It is very confusing when someone has had different periods of being kinds of ‘qualified person’ e.g. student, employed, self sufficient. With the online form, you are asked whether you have, for example, ever been a student in the UK. Applicants often tick yes, even when the period of time that they were a student falls outside of the 5 year period they are relying upon to prove their PR
⦁ EEA applications on the basis of Domestic Violence when certain information (from the offending party) is missing
The Home Office says that in the case of domestic violence, it is practice that the case worker will always check with HMRC for missing information. This agreement is currently in place.
⦁ UK BA + HMRC = faster applications for EEA nationals
The UK BA and the HMRC are currently piloting an MOU between the two departments which would ultimately result in applications being required to supply significantly less information.
The pilot programme is for 10,000 cases per month. This number is not enough to deal with all of the cases that they have currently, but it is enough for a comprehensive test. The UK BA is cautious but optimistic. With 3 million people likely to be applying for some kind of documentation in the next two years, they want to be able to share data easily. Accessing information from HMRC does not generally add too much time to the application processing time.
⦁ EEA applications - breaks of residence of breaks of employment ?
The UK BA explains that in practice, any break of less than six months is treated as an absence, rather than a break in employment or a period of job seeking. The UK BA intends to claify this aspect in the guidance at some point.
⦁ EEA applications and bank statements - does every bank statement's page needs to be stamped ?
This is asking too much when some bank statements are very long, and applicants are required to pay their bank for this service. The UK BA says that they will accept statements where only the first page is stamped. The UK BA intends to reflect that in theyr new guidance.
⦁ The UK BA is planning to go more digital with the EEA Permanent Residence application and is even planning to include in the EEA application a section where the applicant can list his or her overseas address, implying that the EEA Permanent Residence application which are currently can only be lodged from within the UK, may in the future be lodged from outside of the UK.
Into force 10 August 2017. Intended to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MM (Lebanon) [2017] UKSC 10.
The Government’s response to the judgment of the Supreme Court judgment in MM (Lebanon) et ors [2017] UKSC 10.
Insert new general provisions in Appendix FM (paragraphs GEN.3.1. to 3.3.) which require the decision-maker, in the circumstances specified, to consider whether the minimum income requirement is met if the other sources of income, financial support or funds set out in the new paragraph 21A of Appendix FM-SE are taken into account. The specified circumstances are that the minimum income requirement is not otherwise met and that it is evident from the information provided by the applicant that there are exceptional circumstances which could render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because of the ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant, their partner or a child under the age of 18 years whom it is ‘evident’ would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.
Paragraph 21A of Appendix FM makes provision as to the other sources of financial support which the decision-maker will take into account in such cases. These are: a ‘credible’ guarantee of sustainable financial support from a third party; a ‘credible’ prospective earnings from the sustainable employment or self-employment of the applicant or their partner; or any other ‘credible’ and reliable source of income or funds available to the couple. Paragraph 21A also makes provision for to be considered in determining credibility and reliability of the source of funds.
The decision-maker must consider, when an application does not meet the requirements of the rules, whether, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because it would result in ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant or their family. The Explanatory note asserts that this brings a test already in guidance which was substantially upheld by the Supreme Court in Agyarko & Ikuga [2017] UKSC 11 into the rules. It is further asserted that the rules now provide a complete framework for the Secretary of State’s consideration of an application under Appendix FM on Article 8 grounds. References to leave granted outside the Rules on Article 8 grounds are systematically removed.
The changes require the deicison-maker, in considering an application under the new GEN 3.1 to 3.3 provisions, to have regard, as a primary consideration, to the best interests of any child affected by the decision.
The changes also provide that grants on the GEN 3.1 to 3.3 bases will put persons on the 10-year route to settlement, with scope to apply to transfer to the five-year route if and when they meet its requirements. Changes are also intended to ensure that a child is granted leave of the same duration and on the same basis as a parent and to ensure that the partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain before the principal does. There is also a drafting, not intended to be a substantial, change to the English language requirement for partners or parents.
In a troubling change in paragraph GEN1.11A, destitution as per s 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or particularly compelling reasons relating to the welfare of child will be required to avoid a 'No recourse to public funds' condition.
NB: It has been always a good idea to explain the reasons for withdrawing the appeal. It now seems that the reasoning for withdrawing of the appeal is becoming obligatory
(i) The public law character of appeals to the FTT is reflected in the regulatory requirement governing the withdrawal of appeals that any proposed withdrawal of an appeal must contain the reasons for the course mooted and must be judicially scrutinized, per rule 17 of the FTT Rules and rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules.
(ii) Judicial evaluation of both the withdrawal of an appellant’s appeal and the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case or appeal is required.
(iii) Every judicial determination of an appellant’s proposal to withdraw an appeal or the Secretary of State’s proposal to withdraw requires a brief outline of the reasons for the decision. The purpose of the judicial scrutiny is to ensure that the appeal is being properly and correctly withdrawn.
(iv) Judicial scrutiny will normally result in the mooted withdrawal of the appeal being perfected by transmission of the notice to the parties required by Rule 17(iii). However, this will not occur automatically: for example where the proposed withdrawal lacks coherence or is based on a clear material misunderstanding or misconception.
(v) The outcome of the judicial scrutiny should be briefly reasoned.
(vi) Rule 29 of the FTT Rules is confined to the substantive determination of appeals.
(vii) The power of the FTT to set aside a decision under Rule 32 is exercisable only by the FTT President and the Resident Judges.
(viii) In cases where an unsuccessful appellant has a choice, best practice dictates that an application to set aside the impugned decision of the FTT under Rule 32 be first exhausted in advance of the lodgement of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Where both species of challenge are lodged simultaneously, it will be sensible to assign them to the same Judge where feasible.
25 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ Home Office makes changes to Appendix FM Minimum Income Rule following MM case
Further to our post from last week, the headlines are as follows:
⦁ To allow for consideration of other sources of income to meet the Minimum Income Rule
⦁ Where other sources of income are relied upon the applicant, partner and any children, will be granted leave on a 10-year route to settlement
⦁ To give Appendix FM the cover of being compliant with 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
⦁ To allow for recourse to public funds in certain circumstances
⦁ Clarifying the drafting of the English language requirement for further leave to remain as a partner or parent
⦁ Ensuring that a partner of a person here with refugee leave or humanitarian protection cannot qualify for settlement before that person has done so
The changes shall take effect from 10 August 2017 and will apply to all decisions made on or after that date no matter when the application was made.
⦁ When might an appeal continue even though Home Office withdraws the decision? The case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FTT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC)http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/292.html
In the case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, has considered the application of rule 17 of the procedure rules. This rule provides that where the Home Office withdraws a decision which is under appeal, the appeal will normally be treated as withdrawn.
In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers) [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC) the tribunal has decided that a wasted costs order — an order that a representative personally pay the costs incurred by the other side because of poor personal conduct — cannot be made against a Home Office Presenting Officer. They can however still be made against representatives for appellants.
The Legal Aid Agency has been told to directly apologise and pay £10,000 to an expert witness in immigration cases for causing him distress, inconvenience and financial loss by excessively auditing his bills.
The nature of applications which attract a right of appeal have been greatly restricted by the Immigration Act 2014. In summary, only refused human rights applications, or applications for protection, are appealable. All other applications can be challenged by way of Judicial Review or administrative review only. What is the position of individuals who argue, however, that they were wrongly denied a right of appeal?
In the case of Saqib Zia Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424, the Court of Appeal found that the appropriate forum to challenge these decisions is the First-Tier Tribunal.
26 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ We have recently noted that the UK BA started E-mailing Naturalization Ceremony Invitations letters in case the original letter has gone missing in the post
"If you already have a permanent residence document it won’t be valid after the UK leaves the EU."
It is expected that this "statement" about the "invalidity" of the EEA Permanent residence cards will be soon duly amended by the UK BA. It is very strange that this information has been published by the government without due consideration of the consequences !
⦁ No right of appeal ? Appeal !
The UK BA (SSHD, formally), may wrongly assume that the applicant does not, in some cases, have the right of appeal. The Court of Appeal case of Saqib Zia Khan v SSHD (2017) EWCA Civ 424 suggest that although counter-intuitive for an applicant who has been told that he/she could not appeal, this case suggests the correct way forward is precisely to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The First Tier Tribunal will then need to decide: 1) whether the SSHD was wrong to deny the applicant a right of appeal and, if finding that it was, 2) whether the SSHD was wrong to refuse the application itself.
27 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ It seems that the UK BA Criminal Casework Team (UK BA CCT) is making changes to allow all those served with the Section 94 B certification decisions to now be given an in country right of appeal
⦁ Domestic Violence application - return is possible
I had an interesting case in the past. The Client (C) claimed Domestic Violence (DV) from her British Citizen spouse (BC).
I lodged the Settlement application on the basis of DV. While the Settlement application was being considered, the C and the BC reconciled (!) and moved in together (!). The C and BC asked me to vary the DV application to FLR(M). I did that and the C was issued with a 1 year leave (that was when the leaves were for 2 years, that is, pre-2012). The C later applied for Settlement under SETM.
The Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the role EU nationals play in the UK economy and society.
Amber Rudd has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to examine the British labour market, the overall role of migration in the wider economy and how the UK’s immigration system should be aligned with a modern industrial strategy.
The commission represents an extremely important piece of work, with free movement ending when we exit the EU. Plans for the UK’s future immigration system are being developed which will enable the government to control the flow of migration from Europe.
The Home Office will ask the MAC to focus the study on patterns of EU and EEA (European Economic Area) migration, considering regional distribution; skill levels; industry sectors and the role of the self-employed, part-time, agency, temporary and seasonal workers.
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in the case of Sadovska and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 54.
In unanimously allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof of establishing a ‘marriage of convenience’ falls on the Home Office.
⦁ Home Office cracking down on entry of amateur cricketers
The Home Office appears to be cracking down on the entry of foreign amateur cricketers and sportspeople. Emails released by the Home Office under a Freedom of Information request suggest that unpaid amateur cricketers who might in future wish to earn a living from their sport or even any under 17 player who has played at state, province, territory or national team level, paid or unpaid, should be barred from entry to play as an amateur in the UK “so as to protect opportunities for resident sportspeople who are seeking to make a current or future living in that sport” and “prevent the displacement of settled workers.”
The same approach is said to apply to women players as well as men, despite the lower earnings potential for women cricketers.
The decision also provides a useful reminder that video messaging is not sufficient to maintain a family relationship between parents and children, and a powerful restatement of the importance of Article 8 ECHR.
02 August 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ Under the Regulation 21 an EEA application must be lodged with the (EEA) sponsor's original passport of ID card, unless the application is based on the domestic violence
1. An application for Temporary Admission pursuant to reg 29AA of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be granted unless the applicant’s appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security. Proportionality is not the test, and the cost of facilitating the applicant’s appearance is not a relevant consideration. The test is whether it can be said properly that there is the necessary basis for refusing leave pursuant to para 29AA(3).
2. “Appearance”, in this context, means presence in the UK for the purpose of attending the hearing (Kasicky doubted).
3. Where admission is granted for this purpose it must take place within a reasonable time to allow the applicant properly to instruct his solicitors. Normally, some 2 or 3 days before the hearing will be required.
(a) Deception in ETS cases is not a question of precedent fact, except in particular circumstances, for example those in Abbas [2017] EWHC 78 (Admin).
(b) There is no fundamental right to study in a foreign country; nor for children to be there with their would-be student parents; nor can a different standard of review fairly be applied in these cases to applicants with and without children.
(c) It follows that the standard of review in all such cases is on ordinary judicial review principles, requiring fair consideration, bearing in mind both the potentially serious effects of deception findings in general, and the requirements of effective administration.
(d) Oral or other evidence of an applicant’s English-language skills or attainments is unlikely to have any decisive effect in judicial review proceedings on the fairness of the decision under challenge, for the reasons given in Habib (JR/1260/2016) [20], and those at [21].
(e) Evidence obtained by use of the Look-up Tool, and subject to the human verification procedure, is an adequate basis for the Secretary of State’s deception finding in these cases, in the light of Flynn & another [2008] EWCA Crim 970 [24 – 27], and the evidence of both Dr Harrison and Professor French.
(f) The lack of visible note-taking by the human verifiers does not provide any ground of challenge to the decision as insufficiently transparent, where there has been an offer (whether accepted or not) to provide a copy of a voice recording for analysis.
⦁ C5/2015/0626 AM (Afghanistan) Judgment (27 July 2017) :
Includes finding that the rules allow for the appointment of a litigation friend:
"I have come to the conclusion that there is ample flexibility in the tribunal rules to permit a tribunal to appoint a litigation friend in the rare circumstance that the child or incapacitated adult would not be able to represent him/herself and obtain effective access to justice without such a step being taken. In the alternative, even if the tribunal rules are not broad enough to confer that power, the overriding objective in the context of natural justice requires the same conclusion to be reached. It must be remembered that this step will not be necessary in many cases because a child who is an asylum seeker in the UK will have a public authority who may exercise responsibility for him or her and who can give instructions and assistance in the provision of legal representation of the child.".
This Commons Library briefing paper provides an overview of the Home Secretary's powers to deport foreign criminals from the UK, related Government policy and Parliamentary and external scrutiny of the efficiency of current procedures.
⦁ House of Commons' Library briefing paper: UK cases at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975 (Monday 31 July)
"In the case of appeals brought against refusal of entry clearance under Article 8 ECHR, the claimant's ability to satisfy the Immigration Rules is not the question to be determined by the Tribunal, but is capable of being a weighty, though not determinative, factor when deciding whether such refusal is proportionate to the legitimate aim of enforcing immigration control."
What happened at the second round of Brexit negotiations from 17 to 20 July 2017 and what have we learnt? This first phase of the negotiations aims to reach agreement on citizens' rights, the financial settlement and the border between Ireland the Northern Ireland, as well as other separation issues, such as Euratom, EU external agreements and dispute resolution. But there was little evidence of agreement on any of these, and the UK Government has been asked for more clarification at the next round. A lot is at stake, because if sufficient progress isn't made by October, the negotiations will not move on to future relations, an EU-UK trade agreement or transitional arrangements.
House of Commons' library briefing paper: Migrant population of the UK (CBP-8070) (3 August 2017)
This briefing paper uses statistics on migrant stocks to examine trends in the EU and non-EU migrant population living in the UK since 2007. It also provides an overview of the characteristics of migrants living in the UK, including ethnicity, religion, age structure and employment. Both EU and non-EU migrant populations are divided into smaller country groupings according to common geographies.House of Commons' library briefing paper: Employment of other EU nationals in the UK (CBP-8069) (3 August 2017).
This paper provides statistics on nationals of other EU countries who are working in the UK: how many are employed, what kind of work do they do and where do they live, and how numbers have changed over time.
Recent case-law
⦁ Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE) v SSHD & Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, [2017] EWHC 1878 (Admin), 21 July 2017 (Operation Nexus) : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/1878.html
This case concerned Operation Nexus. Thee AIRE Centre argued that it is unlawful for the police, in the purported exercise of police powers, to question people for non-policing (in this case immigration) purposes and that by checking systematcially whether EEA citizens are exercising EU Treaty rights where there was no reason to have doubhts about this breached directive 2004/38/EC.
The challenge failed. Mrs Justice McGowan held that police officers have the same right as a member of the public to ask non-coercive questions of another person and that the ambit of policing purposes is not confined to the investigation of crime or maintenance of public order and encompasses asking questions, the answer to which, provided to the Home Office, permits immigration law to be enforced. She found no breach of the equal treatment provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC. Officers were entitled to ask preliminary questions. If the answers to these gave rise to a reasonable doubt they were entitled to question further.
⦁ R (OGA) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department CO/1734/2017, 3 August 2017
Grant of permission to bring a judicial review. OGA seeks a declaration that paragraph E-DVILR.1.2. of Appendix FM to the Immigration RulesHC 395, on domestic violence, in its present amended form is incompatible with articles 8 and 14 European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. She contends that the rule discriminates against foreign national spouses of persons who, consequent to their arrival, secure settled status in the United Kingdom after completing a period of limited leave as a Tier 1 Migrant, thereby precluding these spouses from domestic violence protection in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules. They share the same characteristics as foreign nationals who are identified under the rule as falling for protection namely that they enjoy a reasonable expectation of settlement in the United Kingdom but fail to secure such protection because they did not initially enter the United Kingdom with requisite leave
09 August 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
Delays in considering of the FLR(FP) applications by the UK BA
According to the UK BA, they say "FLR(FP) applications are not presently subject to a service standard (NB 6 month max). This is due to their potential complexity, relying as they tend to on human rights claims. Therefore a timescale cannot be provided for this type of application.”
In-country extensions of visitor visas
It may be possible to extend one's visitor visa on the medical grounds, for up to 6 months
In SSHD v SU [2017] EWCA Civ 1069 (20 July 2017) the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the unusual case of an individual who had been deported from the UK, returned in breach of the order, and then applied for its revocation having established a private and family life during the subsequent period of unlawful residence.
The case clarifies the applicable rules in revocation cases and provides further evidence, if it were needed, of the complexity of the relevant rules, with two differently constituted tribunals failing to consider two key (albeit very recently instituted) provisions.
One of the interesting side points is that it took the UK BA some TEN (10) YEARS to consider the appellant's initial immigration application !
The cost of making an immigration or nationality application has risen extremely steeply in recent years. Annual increases of 20% or 25% per year are now standard, bringing the current cost of an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2017 to £2,297.
The actual cost of processing such an application is £252, so the Home Office is generating considerable income from each application.
Fees were only introduced for in-country applications in 2003 and the increase only began in earnest in 2007, when for example a postal application for Indefinite Leave to Remain was increased from £335 to £775 and an application for naturalization as a British citizen from £200 to to £575.
"If an applicant finds, after they’ve arrived in the UK, that their visa has been issued with an incorrect endorsement they can request to have it amended. This can be done directly or through a representative or sponsor.".
If the error is on a biometric residence permit (BRP) the applicant must report the problem online : https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits/report-problem
If the error relates to a vignette endorsement the applicant should contact UKVI International Sheffield : (see E-mail in the doucument in the link, above).
⦁ Immigration Directorate Instruction Family Migration: Appendix FM Section 1.0a -Family Life (as a Partner or Parent): 5-Year Routes (10 August 2017)
The guidance reiterates (at paragraph 13.1) the claim made in the explanatory memorandum to HC 290, that Appendix FM now provides a complete framework for Article 8 decision-making. It is understood that it may be helpful to continue asking in the cover letters that the leave is to be considered outside of the rules if the Secretary of State is not minded to grant leave within the rules, but be prepared to make all your Article 8 arguments within the framework of the rules.
The UK BA has clarified that the requirement to produce a document certifying Permanent Residence applies only to those applying to naturalise as British citizens, and so a child’s application can be submitted with the relevant supporting evidence to demonstrate that they (and where applicable, their parents) have acquired the Permanent Residence status (PR) by completing 5 years of residence in the UK in accordance with the EU Regulations.
15 August 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ Applying for Settlement after 6 years on Discretionary Leave ?
It has been reported that some of the applicants are being sent the Section 120 Statement of additional grounds RED.0003 (s120 response) letter, requesting the applicants to re-confirm some of the information already reuquested by the relevant application form. Wht the UK BA is doing that is unclear.
"Particularly relevant to Syrians who were not granted formal refugee status and instead got the lesser status of Humanitarian Protection:
This form is for people resettled under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme or the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme who wish to request their status in the UK is changed from Humanitarian Protection to refugee status.".
What happens where the Upper Tribunal makes a mistake in a Country Guidance case?
And in what circumstances will the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an Upper Tribunal decision that has already been remitted to the First Tier Tribunal?
It was against this decision that AA appealed to the Court of Appeal, on the basis that there was an error in one of the headnote findings. Unusually, the Secretary of State agreed that the appeal should be allowed on this narrow basis.
Both of these interesting issues crop up in AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 944 (11 July 2017).
" To make sure we reduce inconvenience and cost to our users and provide greater flexibility and access to our services, we must deal with cases in the most efficient and proportionate way. One of the ways in which we are doing this is the expansion of video and telephony links to provide remote access either into a physical court room or into the new design of a ‘virtual court room’.
The use of video links already allows victims and vulnerable people to take part in criminal proceedings without having to meet the defendant face-to-face. Telephone conference technology is also already used (to a limited degree) to progress and manage cases in most jurisdictions and for a range of cases. To achieve effective fully virtual hearings, where all parties including the judge, are remote from the court room, we must look at the interactions that currently take place immediately before and after the hearing to make sure we replicate this important activity and, where possible, enhance it. By designing this new service around those who will use it, including those who are seeking justice as well as our justice partners, the judiciary and our staff, we give ourselves the best chance of identifying the right technology required and the right capability and processes to run it…
We are working with partners from Microsoft to build a prototype for a fully virtual hearing, which we will be testing in October 2017 for case management hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber with judges, HMCTS staff, the legal profession and Home Office Presenting Officers.".
The Supreme Court in the case of the Lord Advocate (representing the Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) (Appellant) v Dean (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 44 considered the first occasion on which Taiwan has sought to extradite a British national.
On appeal from the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (‘the Appeal Court’) the Supreme Court considered the correct test for Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) within extradition cases and, in doing so, it reviewed the prison conditions that may reach the Article 3 threshold.
This case may extend beyond extradition cases and could be useful guidance for other cases including asylum.
"Britain’s Home Office has issued a £91m ($118m) tender for immigration services using biometrics and the digitisation of supporting evidence. The tender covers how up to 780,000 people either extend their stay in the UK, settle or pursue British nationality."
Detailed legal guidance on bringing a judicial review case in the Administrative Court.The July 2017 edition reflects legislative and practice changes relevant to the Administrative Court over the last year.
Includes guidance on:
starting a claim
applying for permission for judicial review
substantive hearings
remedies
case management
specific practice points
ending a claim
costs
appeals
The guide also includes contact details for the court, information on forms and fees, and addresses for serving documents on government departments.
The Court of Appeal in GD (Ghana) [2017] EWCA Civ 1126 explained once again what effect residence orders granted by a Family Court have on immigration matters, and criticised both representatives in the First-Tier Tribunal for failing to put the relevant law to the Tribunal.
The ‘residence order’ regime has now been replaced with ‘child arrangement orders’ by the Children and Families Act 2014, but this does not change the effect of family proceedings on immigration proceedings. Residence orders are made by a Family Court and determine with whom a child subject to the order will live, and will usually last until the child is 16 years of age.
The ‘residence order’ regime has now been replaced with ‘child arrangement orders’ by the Children and Families Act 2014, but this does not change the effect of family proceedings on immigration proceedings. Residence orders are made by a Family Court and determine with whom a child subject to the order will live, and will usually last until the child is 16 years of age.
A decision-maker considering deportation of a child subject to a residence order must discuss the case with a senior case worker and the Officers of Children’s Champion (OCC). Nonetheless, any deportation order lawfully made will override a residence order, so long as the residence order is considered in the decision.
(i) The decision of the Upper Tribunal in BAH (EO – Turkey – Liability to Deport) [2012] UKUT 00196 (IAC) belongs to the legal framework prevailing at the time when it was made: it has long been overtaken by the significant statutory and policy developments and reforms effected by the Immigration Act 2014 and the corresponding amendments of the Immigration Rules, coupled with YM (Uganda) [2014] EWCA Civ 1292 at [36] - [39].
(ii)In cases where the public interest favouring deportation of an immigrant is potent and pressing, even egregious and unjustified delay on the part of the Secretary of State in the underlying decision making process is unlikely to tip the balance in the immigrant’s favour in the proportionality exercise under Article 8(2) ECHR.
1. The intrinsic undesirability of and the strong general presumption against allowing a “rolling review” in judicial review proceedings whereby the Upper Tribunal admits material evidence that has not been considered by the primary decision maker are important factors in considering an application to amend grounds to challenge a supplementary or new decision (see R (Caroopen & Myrie) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 1307). However, the decision whether to allow amendments of the grounds of challenge is a case management decision taking account of all relevant considerations.
2. In applying the policy set out in the Competent Authority Guidance and the Discretionary Leave Guidance, the fact of the respondent having “mishandled” the case and the impact of that upon the applicant, are relevant/material considerations in determining the duration of leave to be granted to a Victim of Trafficking.
3. Where the respondent has regard to an earlier disengagement from treatment in considering the duration of leave to be granted, a relevant consideration is whether that disengagement from treatment was because of a failure to provide support as a VOT because of an earlier incorrect “conclusive grounds decision”.
The story of Patrick Thies, a US NHS surgeon who had to return to the US to apply for a new visa for his two adopted children while his British wife and biological son remained in the UK, made the news a couple of weeks ago.
Immigration and nationality law as it relates to international adoption is undoubtedly complex and a topic with which only a few practitioners are familiar. There are numerically very few international adoption cases, after all. The inevitable cross over with family law does not make it any easier.
In Sivapatham (Appearance of Bias: Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 293 (IAC) (7 July 2017) frustrated novelist and president of the Upper Tribunal McCloskey J considers the law surrounding judicial bias in the tribunal.
As with previous exponents of the art (see Denning LJ, or Moses LJ), judgments of the President are almost always entertaining on some level, written with eloquence and a sense of the dramatic, in ornate prose.
This determination is no different, and brings together important guidance on the steps to be taken where judicial bias is alleged, and the relevant legal principles for a court hearing any such allegation.
A couple may enter into a “marriage of convenience”, even if they are in a genuine relationship. This was, in summary, the finding of the High Court in the case of Molina, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1730 (Admin).
24 August 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ Types of adoption vs the UK Immigration applications
There are different types of adoption:
1. Adoptions under the terms of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993 (or just “Hague Convention” in this context). The Hague Convention only applies to inter-country adoptions. In other words, a family based in the US adopting a child in the US cannot adopt under the terms of the Hague Convention. In addition, not all counties are party to the Convention.
2. Overseas adoptions recognized by UK law. These are adoptions which took place in countries or territories whose adoption procedures are recognized by the UK. For adoptions which took place before 3 January 2014, the list of countries is found in The Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) Order 1973 and The Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions)(Variation) Order 1993. For adoptions which took place after 3 January 2014, the list of countries is found in The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and in The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions)(Scotland) Regulations 2013 for Scotland.
3. Overseas adoptions not recognized by UK law. These are adoptions which took place in countries not listed above. These cases can be very difficult in immigration terms unless they are classed as “de facto adoptions” (see below) but the recent case of W v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1733 (Fam) provides a rare example of a reported successful resolution, although not without considerable stress and expense.
4. De facto adoptions, defined at paragraph 309A of the Immigration Rules as situations where:
- The adoptive parents have been living together abroad for at least eighteen months; and
- The adoptive parents have been living together with the child for twelve months; and
- The adoptive parents have cared for the child for the full eighteen month period.
The CJEU held very firmly that periods in prison cannot be counted towards permanent residence. The court re-emphasized the importance of “social cohesion” and the need for genuine integration as a way to “strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship”. A prison sentence, which demonstrates that the person concerned does not comply with the values of the host member state as expressed in its criminal law, shows that the link of integration with the host member state has been undermined. It would be contrary to the aims of the Directive to allow periods in prison to count towards a right of permanent residence.
The UK Visa Application Centre now open 24 hours a day/ 5 days a week.
VFS and UKVI have announced that the Delhi Visa Application Centre is now open 24 hours a Day / 5 Days a week for one month starting 16 August 2017 until 15 September 2017.
Students can access late appointments and interviews with UKVI between 17:00 and 20:30. Open Monday to Friday, the service offers early (before 8am) and late (after 4pm) appointments, as well as additional appointments throughout the night. Charges for these services start at INR 6750 and come with complimentary access to the Premium Lounge at the VAC, as well as the benefit of a quicker application process at a lessc rowded VAC.
UK Visas and Immigration modernised guidance for how it prepares and gives evidence in court, and what it expects when it gives evidence, and the rules of evidence.
(i) The burden of proving that a person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society under Regulation 21(5)(c) of the EEA Regulations rests on the Secretary of State.
(ii) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
(iii) Membership of an organisation proscribed under the laws of a foreign country does not without more satisfy the aforementioned test.
(iv) The “Bouchereau” exception is no longer good law: CS (Morroco) applied
29 August 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ Can an EEA national, who has been residing in the UK since 2008 and was exercising her Treaty Rights until 2010 become a Permanent Resident in the UK, provided that EEA national has been permanently incapacitated since 2008 ? Can that EEA national sponsor an overseas spouse to come to live with her in the UK ?
Yes, if the incapacity is permanent and it can be shown the EEA national resided in the UK for two or more years prior to the termination of her activity, then that EEA national may have acquired the Permanent Residence status in the UK. Accordingly, such an EEA national can also sponsor her spouse to come to live with her in the UK. Also, when that migrant spouse comes to the UK, that migrant spouse may immediately have a Permanent Residence status in the UK as the family member of an EEA National who has ceased activity under the Regulation 5(3):
(3) The condition in this paragraph is that the person terminates activity in the United Kingdom as a worker or self-employed person as a result of permanent incapacity to work; and—
(a)had resided in the United Kingdom continuously for more than two years prior to the termination
The UK now removes EU citizens and family members before their deportation appeal takes place. Obviously, this interferes with the life that the person has established in the UK (job and home may be lost, for example), in effect prejudges the outcome of the appeal, has a drastic impact on family members and also interferes somewhat with preparing the appeal. However, it is possible for such an individual to re-enter the UK for the purpose of attending the appeal hearing, for example to give evidence. This tribunal case addresses the test for readmission and the procedure.
The official headnote:
1. An application for Temporary Admission pursuant to Reg 29AA of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be granted unless the applicant’s appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security. Proportionality is not the test, and the cost of facilitating the applicant’s appearance is not a relevant consideration. The test is whether it can be said properly that there is the necessary basis for refusing leave pursuant to para 29AA(3).
2. “Appearance”, in this context, means presence in the UK for the purpose of attending the hearing (Kasicky doubted).
3. Where admission is granted for this purpose it must take place within a reasonable time to allow the applicant properly to instruct his solicitors. Normally, some 2 or 3 days before the hearing will be required.
31 August 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923
⦁ Notes on the UK Spouse/Partner visa English language test
If you are taking an IELTS test make sure that you book it as the IELTS Test for the UKVI at the SELT location as otherwise it is unlikely to be accepted
There is no requirement to show exceptional circumstances to make a further application after a refusal under 39E(2). One will have the intial 14 days to do so during the one's Section 3C leave which continues after the refusal if the one has made an in-time application, and a further 14 day period after that as an overstayer.
Request an exemption from the knowledge of language and Life in the UK Test requirement because of a long term physical or mental condition.
⦁ Can the fresh documentary evidence be adduced at a later stage on appeal ?
One may add the the fresh documentary evidence on appeal as the bar on the fresh documentary evidence under the Section 85(5) (amended by the Immigration 2014 Act) no longer exists.
38. Permission to stay under this route will be subject to the following conditions :
…..
“c. no employment other than working for the business or businesses that you have established, joined or taken over but working for such business(es) does not include any work you do which is effectively employment with another business (for more details – see Annex A, A41), and
d. no employment as a professional sportsperson (including as a sports coach).
The Guardian newspaper has obtained a copy of a leaked document setting out the government’s proposals on how to end free movement and what comes next. Why Commission the Migration Advisory Committee to advise you when you have a blueprint, right down to the naff icons, ready prepared? One that appears to envisage business as usual with EU nationals absorbed into something that looks very like the current immigration system, with no sign of fears that that system might crack under the strain.
As to the transitional period there are signs that the government is itching to make changes during it, for example to the rights of EU nationals to be joined by family members. And the document makes express that the government has Metock, Zambrano, and Surinder Singh in its sights.
Guidance on authority levels for decisions on nationality applications.
Despite its dull appearance, provides an inkling of which matters Home Office considers controversial in nationality applications.
⦁ Is curtailment of leave a variation of leave ? Can I migrant student carry on working for the permitted 20 hours while the leave was curtailed and that person is re-applying ?
Curtailment is not a variation of leave. It is exactly what it is – a curtailment. The student migrant would remain lawfully on the Tier 4 visa, assuming that the migrant student made an in time application for further leave to remain.
Комментарии
⦁ Visitor visa may be included in the total time to qualify for Settlement under the 10 year Long Residence Rule
⦁ How does the UK immigration law defines "the date of the application" ?
The answer is in the Paragraph 34G of the Rules which states:
Date an application (or variation of an application) for leave to remain is made
34G. For the purposes of these rules, the date on which an application (or a variation of application in accordance with paragraph 34E) is made is:
(i) where the application form is sent by post by Royal Mail, the date of posting as shown on the tracking information provided by Royal Mail or, if not tracked, by the postmark date on the envelope; or
(ii) where the application is made on a paper application form and is submitted in person, the date on which it is received at a Home Office premium service centre; or
(iii) where the paper application form is sent by courier, or other postal services provider, the date on which it is delivered to the Home Office; or
(iv) where the application is made via the online application process, the date on which the online application is submitted whether or not a subsequent appointment is made at a Home Office premium service centre.
⦁ A Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) main applicant may, subject, to meeting the relevant Rules, apply for Settlement (ILR) in the UK via the accelerated route in 3 years. At the same time, it appears, on the basis of the current Rules, the family members of that Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) may only apply for Settlement in the UK having completed the 5 year period of residence in the UK as dependents of that Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) main applicant
⦁ EEA National children born in the UK whose parents obtain Permanent Residence after their birth need to register as British citizens in order to become British citizens
⦁ Retained Right of Residence application when the former EEA national spouse refuses to provide evidence of his/her employment
We recently had an interesting and successful case, when the client was granted Permanent Residence status in the UK despite his ex-EEA spouse refusing to provide evidence of her employment during the divorce. We used the spouse's public Facebook and LinkedIn posts about her jobs and the UK BA accepted it. Nothing is impossible with the Legal Centre, as we say
⦁ Settlement (ILR) applications - does the applicant need to satisfy the same (strict) good character requirements as for British Citizenship?
Apparently not, but there are certain suitability requirements in the Immigration Rules
⦁ Upper Tribunal rules it unsafe to return anyone to Libya : http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/263.html
The violence in Libya has reached such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a returning civilian would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to a threat to his life or person.
This is the country guidance the Upper Tribunal gave in the case of ZMM (Article 15©) Libya CG [2017] UKUT 263 (IAC), overturning the earlier country guidance of AT and Others (Article 15c; risk categories) (CG) [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC).
⦁ Home Office, Pre-departure accommodation operating standards, v.1.0, 26 June 2017 : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ating-standards
UK Visas and Immigration has issued new operating standards and guidance on pre-departure accommodation for families reflecting its relocation from Cedars to Tinsley House.
⦁ A statement has been laid today about leave to remain up to 12 months outside Immigration Rules for residents of Grenfell tower. A community briefing has also been produced for residents, the text of which is which is attached. The statement can be at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-07-05/HCWS29/
⦁ Settlement for an adult relative aged 18 years to join a British citizen in the UK - is it all possible ?
Potentially - yes under the Appendix FM - Adult Dependent Relatives. And yet it is worth mentioning that apart from showing that the parties are related as claimed, the Sponsor is a British citizen, finances and accommodation etc, the applicant shall also show for example, the trigger for the so-called medical dependency. The such an applicant needs to satisfy is different. The Applicant will probably only succeed outside the Immigration Rules. For example, adult siblings would need to show something more than normal emotional ties per the Court of Appeal case in "Kugathas".
⦁ Changes to Settlement applications in Israel : https://uk.tlscontact.com/il/TLV/news.php?id=6291_5497
"From the 29 May 2017, it will no longer be necessary for customers applying for UK settlement visas to submit their supporting documents during their VAC appointment. Instead, supporting documentation should be sent directly to UKVI in Sheffield, UK by post (full postal address is below). From 29 June 2017, supporting documents will no longer be accepted at Visa Application Centre in Tel Aviv.
When to submit the documents
You or your representative/sponsor should send all supporting documents within 20 working days of the biometric enrolment for standard fee applications and within 10 working days for Priority Visa Service applications. Please note that any delays in submitting these documents could lead to a delay in the consideration of your application.
Where to submit
Please send to the following address:
UKVI
PO Box 3468
Sheffield, UK
S3 8WA"
⦁ Lodged your postal application and now regret as it seem to take months and months ?
It not all lost for some type of the applications as one can ask the UK BA to expedie consideration and have certain types of the applications considered withth 5 workings days (at an extra fee, of course): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/premium-visa-upgrade-request-form
⦁ Rules on exceptions for overstayers can be found under para 39E : https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-1-leave-to-enter-or-stay-in-the-uk#pt1stay
Generally, an overstay up to 14 days may be accepted by the UK BA provided there was a very, very good reason for it
⦁ A person whose appeal is pending consideration by the court (and that person has a Section 3D leave at the moment) cannot usually make a fresh application to the UK BA
⦁ Can a child stateless by “choice” be registered as a British citizen?
Under the British Nationality Act 1981, a child who is born in the UK and is (and always has been) stateless is entitled to register as a British citizen. See Schedule 2, Paragraph 3.
In MK (A Child By Her Litigation Friend CAE), R (On the Application Of) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1365 (Admin) (14 June 2017), the High Court considered whether the definition of ‘stateless’ in this context includes those who do not automatically acquire nationality by the operation of their own national law, but to whom it is open to acquire such nationality by registration or similar process should they chose to do so.
⦁ The Good Character Requirement for Naturalization (Appendix D) can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406368/Chapter_18_Annex_D_v02.pdf
⦁ Home Office response to a report on the re-inspection of the Tier 4 curtailment process
The Home Office response to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s re-inspection of the complaints handling process
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-office-response-to-a-report-on-the-re-inspection-of-the-tier-4-curtailment-process
⦁ Is switching from Tier 2 (General) in to an Ancestry Dependent in-country possible ?
Yes. According to para 196A switching from a Tier 2 (General) to an Ancestry Dependent in-country is possible
⦁ Useful information note for the EEA national Carer’s Allowance in the UK : http://www.airecentre.org/data/files/resources/25/Info-Note-on-Carers-as-Workers-2014.pdf
⦁ £48,000 damages awarded to torture survivor for injuries suffered during deportation attempt : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1461.html
Following a seven-day hearing in the High Court, Mr Felix Wamala, a Ugandan national, was awarded £48,000 in damages for the actions of private security guards contracted by the Home Office in seeking to remove him from the UK. This is the case of Wamala v Tascor Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1461. The judgment is a mammoth one, weighing in at 558 paragraphs plus annexes.
⦁ How to cancel an outstanding immigration application : https://www.gov.uk/cancel-visa
⦁ Interesting Court of Appeal decision - can a person born in the UK be deported from them UK ? See www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/236.html
This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal dismissing the Appellant's appeal against a decision to deport him to Nigeria. The central feature of the case is that he has lived in the UK since birth and has never been to Nigeria and has no substantial links with that country.
⦁ The current SET(M) application form for partners of British citizens/Settled persons (pre July 2012 and post July 2012 applications) can be found here : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/618245/set_m_-form-06-17.pdf
Note that the financial requirement still has to be met by those applying for Settlement if their partner visas were issued post July 2012 under the Appendix FM ("the new Rules")
⦁ The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/756), 17 July 2017 and letter from the Lord O’Shaughnessy, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health (Lords) undated but sent 17 July 2017 : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/756/pdfs/uksi_20170756_en.pdf
Into effect 21 August 2017 and 23 October 2017, with up front payment for services that are not urgent or immediately necessary and extending the range of providers of NHS-funded services who must make and recover charges for relevant services from an “overseas visitor” from 23 October 2017.
Amend the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/238) which provide for the making and recovery of charges for relevant services provided under the National Health Service Act 2006 to certain persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. When an NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust determines that a person is an overseas visitor, it must record that fact and whether the person is exempt from charges against that person’s “consistent identifier” (see regulation 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consistent Identifier) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1439). Refunds are dealt with.
Lord O’Shaughnessy’s letter recalls the government’s December 2016 promise to amend the 2015 regulations ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’ to provide that all asylum seekers whose claims have failed and are supported by the Home Office under any provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 be exempt from the charge, not just those supported under s 95 or s 4(2) of that Act. His letter explains that the government has reneged on that promise because the support scheme is about to change, and it has decided that it would be better to amend the 2015 regulations when the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 are commenced ‘to reduce confusion for NHS decision-makers’ (who are no doubt quite confused enough already). No hint is given as to when the support provisions of the Act will come into force. Instead, the only change to regulation 15 effected by these regulations is to make explicit that dependants of persons exempted are exempt. The exemption for persons supported under s 95 is to be retained. There is a promise/warning that at the time when the regulation 15 changes are made, other changes could also be made.
EEA applications and intended changes
⦁ EEA applications delays
The delays are simply due to the amount of people applying, according to the UK BA.To tackle the increased number of applications, the Home Office has recruited more staff. Initially, this area of the department had 390 staff, now around 600, and they are planning to reach about 800. Staff are covering two shifts a day. Additional shifts have also been added, including evenings and weekends. They are planning to acquire more staff accommodation. The Home Office is aware that the process that people go through to get Permanent Residence is cumbersome. It was always a slow process, which has been made slower by the influx of applications.
⦁ EEA applications - EEA passports
Why are not EEA passports returned when they are sent off as part of a non-EEA family member application ? The response from Home Office is that it is because the passport is seen as a ‘supporting document’, rather than an identify document.
⦁ On-line EEA applications forms still have some errors
The guidance needs to make it clear that you only need to prove five years. It is very confusing when someone has had different periods of being kinds of ‘qualified person’ e.g. student, employed, self sufficient. With the online form, you are asked whether you have, for example, ever been a student in the UK. Applicants often tick yes, even when the period of time that they were a student falls outside of the 5 year period they are relying upon to prove their PR
⦁ EEA applications on the basis of Domestic Violence when certain information (from the offending party) is missing
The Home Office says that in the case of domestic violence, it is practice that the case worker will always check with HMRC for missing information. This agreement is currently in place.
⦁ UK BA + HMRC = faster applications for EEA nationals
The UK BA and the HMRC are currently piloting an MOU between the two departments which would ultimately result in applications being required to supply significantly less information.
The pilot programme is for 10,000 cases per month. This number is not enough to deal with all of the cases that they have currently, but it is enough for a comprehensive test. The UK BA is cautious but optimistic. With 3 million people likely to be applying for some kind of documentation in the next two years, they want to be able to share data easily. Accessing information from HMRC does not generally add too much time to the application processing time.
⦁ EEA applications - breaks of residence of breaks of employment ?
The UK BA explains that in practice, any break of less than six months is treated as an absence, rather than a break in employment or a period of job seeking. The UK BA intends to claify this aspect in the guidance at some point.
⦁ EEA applications and bank statements - does every bank statement's page needs to be stamped ?
This is asking too much when some bank statements are very long, and applicants are required to pay their bank for this service. The UK BA says that they will accept statements where only the first page is stamped. The UK BA intends to reflect that in theyr new guidance.
⦁ The UK BA is planning to go more digital with the EEA Permanent Residence application and is even planning to include in the EEA application a section where the applicant can list his or her overseas address, implying that the EEA Permanent Residence application which are currently can only be lodged from within the UK, may in the future be lodged from outside of the UK.
⦁ Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 290, 20 July 2017 : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-changes-to-the-immigration-rules-hc290-20-july-2017
Into force 10 August 2017. Intended to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MM (Lebanon) [2017] UKSC 10.
The Government’s response to the judgment of the Supreme Court judgment in MM (Lebanon) et ors [2017] UKSC 10.
Insert new general provisions in Appendix FM (paragraphs GEN.3.1. to 3.3.) which require the decision-maker, in the circumstances specified, to consider whether the minimum income requirement is met if the other sources of income, financial support or funds set out in the new paragraph 21A of Appendix FM-SE are taken into account. The specified circumstances are that the minimum income requirement is not otherwise met and that it is evident from the information provided by the applicant that there are exceptional circumstances which could render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because of the ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant, their partner or a child under the age of 18 years whom it is ‘evident’ would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.
Paragraph 21A of Appendix FM makes provision as to the other sources of financial support which the decision-maker will take into account in such cases. These are: a ‘credible’ guarantee of sustainable financial support from a third party; a ‘credible’ prospective earnings from the sustainable employment or self-employment of the applicant or their partner; or any other ‘credible’ and reliable source of income or funds available to the couple. Paragraph 21A also makes provision for to be considered in determining credibility and reliability of the source of funds.
The decision-maker must consider, when an application does not meet the requirements of the rules, whether, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because it would result in ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant or their family. The Explanatory note asserts that this brings a test already in guidance which was substantially upheld by the Supreme Court in Agyarko & Ikuga [2017] UKSC 11 into the rules. It is further asserted that the rules now provide a complete framework for the Secretary of State’s consideration of an application under Appendix FM on Article 8 grounds. References to leave granted outside the Rules on Article 8 grounds are systematically removed.
The changes require the deicison-maker, in considering an application under the new GEN 3.1 to 3.3 provisions, to have regard, as a primary consideration, to the best interests of any child affected by the decision.
The changes also provide that grants on the GEN 3.1 to 3.3 bases will put persons on the 10-year route to settlement, with scope to apply to transfer to the five-year route if and when they meet its requirements. Changes are also intended to ensure that a child is granted leave of the same duration and on the same basis as a parent and to ensure that the partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain before the principal does.
There is also a drafting, not intended to be a substantial, change to the English language requirement for partners or parents.
In a troubling change in paragraph GEN1.11A, destitution as per s 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or particularly compelling reasons relating to the welfare of child will be required to avoid a 'No recourse to public funds' condition.
⦁ TPN (FTT appeals – withdrawal) Vietnam [2017] UKUT 00295 (IAC), 21 July 2017
NB: It has been always a good idea to explain the reasons for withdrawing the appeal. It now seems that the reasoning for withdrawing of the appeal is becoming obligatory
(i) The public law character of appeals to the FTT is reflected in the regulatory requirement governing the withdrawal of appeals that any proposed withdrawal of an appeal must contain the reasons for the course mooted and must be judicially scrutinized, per rule 17 of the FTT Rules and rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules.
(ii) Judicial evaluation of both the withdrawal of an appellant’s appeal and the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case or appeal is required.
(iii) Every judicial determination of an appellant’s proposal to withdraw an appeal or the Secretary of State’s proposal to withdraw requires a brief outline of the reasons for the decision. The purpose of the judicial scrutiny is to ensure that the appeal is being properly and correctly withdrawn.
(iv) Judicial scrutiny will normally result in the mooted withdrawal of the appeal being perfected by transmission of the notice to the parties required by Rule 17(iii). However, this will not occur automatically: for example where the proposed withdrawal lacks coherence or is based on a clear material misunderstanding or misconception.
(v) The outcome of the judicial scrutiny should be briefly reasoned.
(vi) Rule 29 of the FTT Rules is confined to the substantive determination of appeals.
(vii) The power of the FTT to set aside a decision under Rule 32 is exercisable only by the FTT President and the Resident Judges.
(viii) In cases where an unsuccessful appellant has a choice, best practice dictates that an application to set aside the impugned decision of the FTT under Rule 32 be first exhausted in advance of the lodgement of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Where both species of challenge are lodged simultaneously, it will be sensible to assign them to the same Judge where feasible.
⦁ Home Office makes changes to Appendix FM Minimum Income Rule following MM case
Further to our post from last week, the headlines are as follows:
⦁ To allow for consideration of other sources of income to meet the Minimum Income Rule
⦁ Where other sources of income are relied upon the applicant, partner and any children, will be granted leave on a 10-year route to settlement
⦁ To give Appendix FM the cover of being compliant with 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
⦁ To allow for recourse to public funds in certain circumstances
⦁ Clarifying the drafting of the English language requirement for further leave to remain as a partner or parent
⦁ Ensuring that a partner of a person here with refugee leave or humanitarian protection cannot qualify for settlement before that person has done so
The changes shall take effect from 10 August 2017 and will apply to all decisions made on or after that date no matter when the application was made.
⦁ When might an appeal continue even though Home Office withdraws the decision? The case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FTT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/292.html
In the case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, has considered the application of rule 17 of the procedure rules. This rule provides that where the Home Office withdraws a decision which is under appeal, the appeal will normally be treated as withdrawn.
⦁ Tribunal decides wasted costs orders cannot be made against Home Office representatives : http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/555.html
In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers) [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC) the tribunal has decided that a wasted costs order — an order that a representative personally pay the costs incurred by the other side because of poor personal conduct — cannot be made against a Home Office Presenting Officer. They can however still be made against representatives for appellants.
⦁ Expert witness wins apology and payment from Legal Aid Agency : https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/expert-witness-wins-apology-and-payment-from-legal-aid-agency/5062066.article
The Legal Aid Agency has been told to directly apologise and pay £10,000 to an expert witness in immigration cases for causing him distress, inconvenience and financial loss by excessively auditing his bills.
⦁ When wrongly denied a right of appeal, the solution is to appeal : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/424.html
The nature of applications which attract a right of appeal have been greatly restricted by the Immigration Act 2014. In summary, only refused human rights applications, or applications for protection, are appealable. All other applications can be challenged by way of Judicial Review or administrative review only. What is the position of individuals who argue, however, that they were wrongly denied a right of appeal?
In the case of Saqib Zia Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424, the Court of Appeal found that the appropriate forum to challenge these decisions is the First-Tier Tribunal.
⦁ House of Lords European Union Select Committee work on Brexit, July 2017 : http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/eu-select-committee-/news-parliament-2017/barnier-verhofstadt-transcripts-published/
House of Lords' debate on the Committee's report on UK-EU free movement of persons after Brexit 14 July 2017
⦁ We have recently noted that the UK BA started E-mailing Naturalization Ceremony Invitations letters in case the original letter has gone missing in the post
⦁ The Home Office is still applying Jame’s Brokenshire’s comments of 2015 as regards individuals recognized as refugees not being refused naturalization on the grounds of bad character as a consequence of entering the UK illegally. See paragraph 9.7 of Annex D of the Nationality Instructions: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406368/Chapter_18_Annex_D_v02.pdf
⦁ Warning. Potentially misleading (!) information from the UK BA : https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/permanent-residence
"If you already have a permanent residence document it won’t be valid after the UK leaves the EU."
It is expected that this "statement" about the "invalidity" of the EEA Permanent residence cards will be soon duly amended by the UK BA. It is very strange that this information has been published by the government without due consideration of the consequences !
⦁ No right of appeal ? Appeal !
The UK BA (SSHD, formally), may wrongly assume that the applicant does not, in some cases, have the right of appeal. The Court of Appeal case of Saqib Zia Khan v SSHD (2017) EWCA Civ 424 suggest that although counter-intuitive for an applicant who has been told that he/she could not appeal, this case suggests the correct way forward is precisely to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The First Tier Tribunal will then need to decide: 1) whether the SSHD was wrong to deny the applicant a right of appeal and, if finding that it was, 2) whether the SSHD was wrong to refuse the application itself.
⦁ It seems that the UK BA Criminal Casework Team (UK BA CCT) is making changes to allow all those served with the Section 94 B certification decisions to now be given an in country right of appeal
⦁ Domestic Violence application - return is possible
I had an interesting case in the past. The Client (C) claimed Domestic Violence (DV) from her British Citizen spouse (BC).
I lodged the Settlement application on the basis of DV. While the Settlement application was being considered, the C and the BC reconciled (!) and moved in together (!). The C and BC asked me to vary the DV application to FLR(M). I did that and the C was issued with a 1 year leave (that was when the leaves were for 2 years, that is, pre-2012). The C later applied for Settlement under SETM.
⦁ Claiming asylum in the UK - the basics how to: https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum
⦁ MAC to examine the role EU nationals play in the UK economy and society : https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-commissions-major-study-on-eu-workers
The Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the role EU nationals play in the UK economy and society.
Amber Rudd has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to examine the British labour market, the overall role of migration in the wider economy and how the UK’s immigration system should be aligned with a modern industrial strategy.
The commission represents an extremely important piece of work, with free movement ending when we exit the EU. Plans for the UK’s future immigration system are being developed which will enable the government to control the flow of migration from Europe.
The Home Office will ask the MAC to focus the study on patterns of EU and EEA (European Economic Area) migration, considering regional distribution; skill levels; industry sectors and the role of the self-employed, part-time, agency, temporary and seasonal workers.
⦁ Supreme Court confirms that burden for proving marriage of convenience rests with Home Office : https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0031-judgment.pdf
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in the case of Sadovska and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 54.
In unanimously allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof of establishing a ‘marriage of convenience’ falls on the Home Office.
⦁ Home Office cracking down on entry of amateur cricketers
The Home Office appears to be cracking down on the entry of foreign amateur cricketers and sportspeople. Emails released by the Home Office under a Freedom of Information request suggest that unpaid amateur cricketers who might in future wish to earn a living from their sport or even any under 17 player who has played at state, province, territory or national team level, paid or unpaid, should be barred from entry to play as an amateur in the UK “so as to protect opportunities for resident sportspeople who are seeking to make a current or future living in that sport” and “prevent the displacement of settled workers.”
The same approach is said to apply to women players as well as men, despite the lower earnings potential for women cricketers.
⦁ When will a foreign adoption be recognised in common law for immigration purposes? See see case of W v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1733 (Fam) (07 July 2017) - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/1733.html
The decision also provides a useful reminder that video messaging is not sufficient to maintain a family relationship between parents and children, and a powerful restatement of the importance of Article 8 ECHR.
⦁ Under the Regulation 21 an EEA application must be lodged with the (EEA) sponsor's original passport of ID card, unless the application is based on the domestic violence
Recent case-law
⦁ R (on the application of Gabor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reg 29AA: interpretation) [2017] UKUT 00287 (IAC) (12 July 2017): https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-287
1. An application for Temporary Admission pursuant to reg 29AA of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be granted unless the applicant’s appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security. Proportionality is not the test, and the cost of facilitating the applicant’s appearance is not a relevant consideration. The test is whether it can be said properly that there is the necessary basis for refusing leave pursuant to para 29AA(3).
2. “Appearance”, in this context, means presence in the UK for the purpose of attending the hearing (Kasicky doubted).
3. Where admission is granted for this purpose it must take place within a reasonable time to allow the applicant properly to instruct his solicitors. Normally, some 2 or 3 days before the hearing will be required.
⦁ R (on the application of Nawaz) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ETS: review standard/evidential basis) [2017] UKUT 00288 (IAC) (12 July 2017) : https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-288
(a) Deception in ETS cases is not a question of precedent fact, except in particular circumstances, for example those in Abbas [2017] EWHC 78 (Admin).
(b) There is no fundamental right to study in a foreign country; nor for children to be there with their would-be student parents; nor can a different standard of review fairly be applied in these cases to applicants with and without children.
(c) It follows that the standard of review in all such cases is on ordinary judicial review principles, requiring fair consideration, bearing in mind both the potentially serious effects of deception findings in general, and the requirements of effective administration.
(d) Oral or other evidence of an applicant’s English-language skills or attainments is unlikely to have any decisive effect in judicial review proceedings on the fairness of the decision under challenge, for the reasons given in Habib (JR/1260/2016) [20], and those at [21].
(e) Evidence obtained by use of the Look-up Tool, and subject to the human verification procedure, is an adequate basis for the Secretary of State’s deception finding in these cases, in the light of Flynn & another [2008] EWCA Crim 970 [24 – 27], and the evidence of both Dr Harrison and Professor French.
(f) The lack of visible note-taking by the human verifiers does not provide any ground of challenge to the decision as insufficiently transparent, where there has been an offer (whether accepted or not) to provide a copy of a voice recording for analysis.
⦁ C5/2015/0626 AM (Afghanistan) Judgment (27 July 2017) :
Includes finding that the rules allow for the appointment of a litigation friend:
"I have come to the conclusion that there is ample flexibility in the tribunal rules to permit a tribunal to appoint a litigation friend in the rare circumstance that the child or incapacitated adult would not be able to represent him/herself and obtain effective access to justice without such a step being taken. In the alternative, even if the tribunal rules are not broad enough to confer that power, the overriding objective in the context of natural justice requires the same conclusion to be reached. It must be remembered that this step will not be necessary in many cases because a child who is an asylum seeker in the UK will have a public authority who may exercise responsibility for him or her and who can give instructions and assistance in the provision of legal representation of the child.".
⦁ House of Commons' Library Briefing Paper - Brexit: the exit bill (CBP-8039) (31 July 2017) : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039
⦁ House of Commons' Library briefing paper: Deportation of foreign national offenders (1 August 2017) : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8062
This Commons Library briefing paper provides an overview of the Home Secretary's powers to deport foreign criminals from the UK, related Government policy and Parliamentary and external scrutiny of the efficiency of current procedures.
⦁ House of Commons' Library briefing paper: UK cases at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975 (Monday 31 July)
This note lists brief details of cases against the UK at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975 : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8049
⦁ Lost your British Naturalization certificate ? Get a replacement: Get a replacement UK citizenship certificate here: https://www.gov.uk/get-replacement-citizenship-certificate
Useful case-law
⦁ Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 00112 (IAC) : https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2015-ukut-112
Head note:
"In the case of appeals brought against refusal of entry clearance under Article 8 ECHR, the claimant's ability to satisfy the Immigration Rules is not the question to be determined by the Tribunal, but is capable of being a weighty, though not determinative, factor when deciding whether such refusal is proportionate to the legitimate aim of enforcing immigration control."
⦁ House of Commons' Library Briefing paper 'Brexit: the July negotiations' (CBP -8068) (2 August 2017) : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8068
What happened at the second round of Brexit negotiations from 17 to 20 July 2017 and what have we learnt? This first phase of the negotiations aims to reach agreement on citizens' rights, the financial settlement and the border between Ireland the Northern Ireland, as well as other separation issues, such as Euratom, EU external agreements and dispute resolution. But there was little evidence of agreement on any of these, and the UK Government has been asked for more clarification at the next round. A lot is at stake, because if sufficient progress isn't made by October, the negotiations will not move on to future relations, an EU-UK trade agreement or transitional arrangements.
⦁ UK Visas and Immigration revised version of the Family Tracing asylum instruction (AI) (28 July 2017) : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tracing-family-members-of-unaccompanied-asylum-seeking-children
⦁ Statistics on migrants, including other EU nationals, in the UK, House of Commons’ library briefings, 3 August 2017 : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8070 & http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8069
House of Commons' library briefing paper: Migrant population of the UK (CBP-8070) (3 August 2017)
This briefing paper uses statistics on migrant stocks to examine trends in the EU and non-EU migrant population living in the UK since 2007. It also provides an overview of the characteristics of migrants living in the UK, including ethnicity, religion, age structure and employment. Both EU and non-EU migrant populations are divided into smaller country groupings according to common geographies.House of Commons' library briefing paper: Employment of other EU nationals in the UK (CBP-8069) (3 August 2017).
This paper provides statistics on nationals of other EU countries who are working in the UK: how many are employed, what kind of work do they do and where do they live, and how numbers have changed over time.
Recent case-law
⦁ Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE) v SSHD & Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, [2017] EWHC 1878 (Admin), 21 July 2017 (Operation Nexus) : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/1878.html
This case concerned Operation Nexus. Thee AIRE Centre argued that it is unlawful for the police, in the purported exercise of police powers, to question people for non-policing (in this case immigration) purposes and that by checking systematcially whether EEA citizens are exercising EU Treaty rights where there was no reason to have doubhts about this breached directive 2004/38/EC.
The challenge failed. Mrs Justice McGowan held that police officers have the same right as a member of the public to ask non-coercive questions of another person and that the ambit of policing purposes is not confined to the investigation of crime or maintenance of public order and encompasses asking questions, the answer to which, provided to the Home Office, permits immigration law to be enforced. She found no breach of the equal treatment provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC. Officers were entitled to ask preliminary questions. If the answers to these gave rise to a reasonable doubt they were entitled to question further.
⦁ R (OGA) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department CO/1734/2017, 3 August 2017
Grant of permission to bring a judicial review. OGA seeks a declaration that paragraph E-DVILR.1.2. of Appendix FM to the Immigration RulesHC 395, on domestic violence, in its present amended form is incompatible with articles 8 and 14 European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. She contends that the rule discriminates against foreign national spouses of persons who, consequent to their arrival, secure settled status in the United Kingdom after completing a period of limited leave as a Tier 1 Migrant, thereby precluding these spouses from domestic violence protection in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules. They share the same characteristics as foreign nationals who are identified under the rule as falling for protection namely that they enjoy a reasonable expectation of settlement in the United Kingdom but fail to secure such protection because they did not initially enter the United Kingdom with requisite leave
Delays in considering of the FLR(FP) applications by the UK BA
According to the UK BA, they say "FLR(FP) applications are not presently subject to a service standard (NB 6 month max). This is due to their potential complexity, relying as they tend to on human rights claims. Therefore a timescale cannot be provided for this type of application.”
In-country extensions of visitor visas
It may be possible to extend one's visitor visa on the medical grounds, for up to 6 months
Changes to nationality instructions, including chapter 18 Annex D good character (3 August 2017) : https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nationality-policy-guidance
Court of Appeal considers revocation of deportation order where deportee returns early in breach of the order : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1069.html
In SSHD v SU [2017] EWCA Civ 1069 (20 July 2017) the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the unusual case of an individual who had been deported from the UK, returned in breach of the order, and then applied for its revocation having established a private and family life during the subsequent period of unlawful residence.
The case clarifies the applicable rules in revocation cases and provides further evidence, if it were needed, of the complexity of the relevant rules, with two differently constituted tribunals failing to consider two key (albeit very recently instituted) provisions.
One of the interesting side points is that it took the UK BA some TEN (10) YEARS to consider the appellant's initial immigration application !
How expensive are UK immigration applications : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visa-regulations-revised-table ?
The cost of making an immigration or nationality application has risen extremely steeply in recent years. Annual increases of 20% or 25% per year are now standard, bringing the current cost of an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2017 to £2,297.
The actual cost of processing such an application is £252, so the Home Office is generating considerable income from each application.
Fees were only introduced for in-country applications in 2003 and the increase only began in earnest in 2007, when for example a postal application for Indefinite Leave to Remain was increased from £335 to £775 and an application for naturalization as a British citizen from £200 to to £575.
⦁ Correcting an incorrect visa/BRP etc endorsement: ECB19 : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/correcting-an-incorrect-endorsement-ecb19/correcting-an-incorrect-endorsement-ecb19
"If an applicant finds, after they’ve arrived in the UK, that their visa has been issued with an incorrect endorsement they can request to have it amended. This can be done directly or through a representative or sponsor.".
If the error is on a biometric residence permit (BRP) the applicant must report the problem online : https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits/report-problem
If the error relates to a vignette endorsement the applicant should contact UKVI International Sheffield : (see E-mail in the doucument in the link, above).
⦁ Immigration Directorate Instruction Family Migration: Appendix FM Section 1.0a -Family Life (as a Partner or Parent): 5-Year Routes (10 August 2017)
The guidance reiterates (at paragraph 13.1) the claim made in the explanatory memorandum to HC 290, that Appendix FM now provides a complete framework for Article 8 decision-making. It is understood that it may be helpful to continue asking in the cover letters that the leave is to be considered outside of the rules if the Secretary of State is not minded to grant leave within the rules, but be prepared to make all your Article 8 arguments within the framework of the rules.
⦁ Nationality: Registration of children of EEA Nationals, 3 August 2017 : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-nationality-policy-guidance
The UK BA has clarified that the requirement to produce a document certifying Permanent Residence applies only to those applying to naturalise as British citizens, and so a child’s application can be submitted with the relevant supporting evidence to demonstrate that they (and where applicable, their parents) have acquired the Permanent Residence status (PR) by completing 5 years of residence in the UK in accordance with the EU Regulations.
⦁ Applying for Settlement after 6 years on Discretionary Leave ?
It has been reported that some of the applicants are being sent the Section 120 Statement of additional grounds RED.0003 (s120 response) letter, requesting the applicants to re-confirm some of the information already reuquested by the relevant application form. Wht the UK BA is doing that is unclear.
⦁ Syrians can now upgrade to full refugee status: new form issued: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/request-to-change-humanitarian-protection-status-to-refugee-status
From the official statement:
"Particularly relevant to Syrians who were not granted formal refugee status and instead got the lesser status of Humanitarian Protection:
This form is for people resettled under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme or the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme who wish to request their status in the UK is changed from Humanitarian Protection to refugee status.".
⦁ How to correct a mistake in a Country Guidance case : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/944.html
What happens where the Upper Tribunal makes a mistake in a Country Guidance case?
And in what circumstances will the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an Upper Tribunal decision that has already been remitted to the First Tier Tribunal?
It was against this decision that AA appealed to the Court of Appeal, on the basis that there was an error in one of the headnote findings. Unusually, the Secretary of State agreed that the appeal should be allowed on this narrow basis.
Both of these interesting issues crop up in AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 944 (11 July 2017).
⦁ Virtual hearings to be trialed in immigration tribunal from October 2017: https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2017/08/10/how-remote-working-will-give-users-and-courts-greater-flexibility/
The press statement:
" To make sure we reduce inconvenience and cost to our users and provide greater flexibility and access to our services, we must deal with cases in the most efficient and proportionate way. One of the ways in which we are doing this is the expansion of video and telephony links to provide remote access either into a physical court room or into the new design of a ‘virtual court room’.
The use of video links already allows victims and vulnerable people to take part in criminal proceedings without having to meet the defendant face-to-face. Telephone conference technology is also already used (to a limited degree) to progress and manage cases in most jurisdictions and for a range of cases. To achieve effective fully virtual hearings, where all parties including the judge, are remote from the court room, we must look at the interactions that currently take place immediately before and after the hearing to make sure we replicate this important activity and, where possible, enhance it. By designing this new service around those who will use it, including those who are seeking justice as well as our justice partners, the judiciary and our staff, we give ourselves the best chance of identifying the right technology required and the right capability and processes to run it…
We are working with partners from Microsoft to build a prototype for a fully virtual hearing, which we will be testing in October 2017 for case management hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber with judges, HMCTS staff, the legal profession and Home Office Presenting Officers.".
⦁ Article 3 and the extradition of a British national to Taiwan: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0212-judgment.pdf
The Supreme Court in the case of the Lord Advocate (representing the Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) (Appellant) v Dean (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 44 considered the first occasion on which Taiwan has sought to extradite a British national.
On appeal from the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (‘the Appeal Court’) the Supreme Court considered the correct test for Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) within extradition cases and, in doing so, it reviewed the prison conditions that may reach the Article 3 threshold.
This case may extend beyond extradition cases and could be useful guidance for other cases including asylum.
⦁ UK’s Home Office issues $118m digitization tender for immigration: http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6171/desc/uks-home-office-issues-118m-digitisation-tender-for-immigration/
From the official statement:
"Britain’s Home Office has issued a £91m ($118m) tender for immigration services using biometrics and the digitisation of supporting evidence. The tender covers how up to 780,000 people either extend their stay in the UK, settle or pursue British nationality."
⦁ New official Administrative Court judicial review guide for 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/administrative-court-judicial-review-guide
Detailed legal guidance on bringing a judicial review case in the Administrative Court.The July 2017 edition reflects legislative and practice changes relevant to the Administrative Court over the last year.
Includes guidance on:
starting a claim
applying for permission for judicial review
substantive hearings
remedies
case management
specific practice points
ending a claim
costs
appeals
The guide also includes contact details for the court, information on forms and fees, and addresses for serving documents on government departments.
⦁ Court of Appeal reiterates effect of orders in the family courts on deportation decisions: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1126.html
The Court of Appeal in GD (Ghana) [2017] EWCA Civ 1126 explained once again what effect residence orders granted by a Family Court have on immigration matters, and criticised both representatives in the First-Tier Tribunal for failing to put the relevant law to the Tribunal.
The ‘residence order’ regime has now been replaced with ‘child arrangement orders’ by the Children and Families Act 2014, but this does not change the effect of family proceedings on immigration proceedings. Residence orders are made by a Family Court and determine with whom a child subject to the order will live, and will usually last until the child is 16 years of age.
The ‘residence order’ regime has now been replaced with ‘child arrangement orders’ by the Children and Families Act 2014, but this does not change the effect of family proceedings on immigration proceedings. Residence orders are made by a Family Court and determine with whom a child subject to the order will live, and will usually last until the child is 16 years of age.
A decision-maker considering deportation of a child subject to a residence order must discuss the case with a senior case worker and the Officers of Children’s Champion (OCC). Nonetheless, any deportation order lawfully made will override a residence order, so long as the residence order is considered in the decision.
Recent case-law
⦁ RLP (BAH revisited – expeditious justice) Jamaica [2017] UKUT 00330 (IAC) (10 August 2017) : https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-330
(i) The decision of the Upper Tribunal in BAH (EO – Turkey – Liability to Deport) [2012] UKUT 00196 (IAC) belongs to the legal framework prevailing at the time when it was made: it has long been overtaken by the significant statutory and policy developments and reforms effected by the Immigration Act 2014 and the corresponding amendments of the Immigration Rules, coupled with YM (Uganda) [2014] EWCA Civ 1292 at [36] - [39].
(ii)In cases where the public interest favouring deportation of an immigrant is potent and pressing, even egregious and unjustified delay on the part of the Secretary of State in the underlying decision making process is unlikely to tip the balance in the immigrant’s favour in the proportionality exercise under Article 8(2) ECHR.
⦁ R (on the application of FT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (“rolling review”; challenging leave granted) [2017] UKUT 00331(IAC) (10 August 2017) : https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-331
1. The intrinsic undesirability of and the strong general presumption against allowing a “rolling review” in judicial review proceedings whereby the Upper Tribunal admits material evidence that has not been considered by the primary decision maker are important factors in considering an application to amend grounds to challenge a supplementary or new decision (see R (Caroopen & Myrie) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 1307). However, the decision whether to allow amendments of the grounds of challenge is a case management decision taking account of all relevant considerations.
2. In applying the policy set out in the Competent Authority Guidance and the Discretionary Leave Guidance, the fact of the respondent having “mishandled” the case and the impact of that upon the applicant, are relevant/material considerations in determining the duration of leave to be granted to a Victim of Trafficking.
3. Where the respondent has regard to an earlier disengagement from treatment in considering the duration of leave to be granted, a relevant consideration is whether that disengagement from treatment was because of a failure to provide support as a VOT because of an earlier incorrect “conclusive grounds decision”.
⦁ Which divorce is recognized in the UK by the UK BA ?
The answer can be found here - RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263218/recog.pdf
⦁ The "Theis case": immigration and nationality law for adopted children: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/04/us-surgeon-may-be-forced-to-quit-uk-because-of-visa-nightmare
The story of Patrick Thies, a US NHS surgeon who had to return to the US to apply for a new visa for his two adopted children while his British wife and biological son remained in the UK, made the news a couple of weeks ago.
Immigration and nationality law as it relates to international adoption is undoubtedly complex and a topic with which only a few practitioners are familiar. There are numerically very few international adoption cases, after all. The inevitable cross over with family law does not make it any easier.
⦁ Upper Tribunal provides guidance in cases of judicial bias: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/293.html
In Sivapatham (Appearance of Bias: Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 293 (IAC) (7 July 2017) frustrated novelist and president of the Upper Tribunal McCloskey J considers the law surrounding judicial bias in the tribunal.
As with previous exponents of the art (see Denning LJ, or Moses LJ), judgments of the President are almost always entertaining on some level, written with eloquence and a sense of the dramatic, in ornate prose.
This determination is no different, and brings together important guidance on the steps to be taken where judicial bias is alleged, and the relevant legal principles for a court hearing any such allegation.
⦁ A genuine couple can enter in a marriage of convenience, says High Court: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/1730.html
A couple may enter into a “marriage of convenience”, even if they are in a genuine relationship. This was, in summary, the finding of the High Court in the case of Molina, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1730 (Admin).
⦁ Study finds asylum judges fail to assist vulnerable appellants : http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0964663917703178
⦁ An EEA family permits may be obtained from any visa issuing post. It is not necessary for an applicant to be lawfully or normally resident in the country to apply : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eea-family-permits-eun02/eea-family-permit-eun02
⦁ The updated Nationality (Current/General) Guidance can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631639/Nationality-policy-general-information-all-British-nationals-v1.0EXT.pdf
⦁ Types of adoption vs the UK Immigration applications
There are different types of adoption:
1. Adoptions under the terms of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993 (or just “Hague Convention” in this context). The Hague Convention only applies to inter-country adoptions. In other words, a family based in the US adopting a child in the US cannot adopt under the terms of the Hague Convention. In addition, not all counties are party to the Convention.
2. Overseas adoptions recognized by UK law. These are adoptions which took place in countries or territories whose adoption procedures are recognized by the UK. For adoptions which took place before 3 January 2014, the list of countries is found in The Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) Order 1973 and The Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions)(Variation) Order 1993. For adoptions which took place after 3 January 2014, the list of countries is found in The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and in The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions)(Scotland) Regulations 2013 for Scotland.
3. Overseas adoptions not recognized by UK law. These are adoptions which took place in countries not listed above. These cases can be very difficult in immigration terms unless they are classed as “de facto adoptions” (see below) but the recent case of W v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1733 (Fam) provides a rare example of a reported successful resolution, although not without considerable stress and expense.
4. De facto adoptions, defined at paragraph 309A of the Immigration Rules as situations where:
- The adoptive parents have been living together abroad for at least eighteen months; and
- The adoptive parents have been living together with the child for twelve months; and
- The adoptive parents have cared for the child for the full eighteen month period.
⦁ It is official: CJEU says prison does not count : http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=146433&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=670176 and http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=146436&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=670807
The CJEU held very firmly that periods in prison cannot be counted towards permanent residence. The court re-emphasized the importance of “social cohesion” and the need for genuine integration as a way to “strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship”. A prison sentence, which demonstrates that the person concerned does not comply with the values of the host member state as expressed in its criminal law, shows that the link of integration with the host member state has been undermined. It would be contrary to the aims of the Directive to allow periods in prison to count towards a right of permanent residence.
⦁ Who needs to pay the NHS surcharge fee : https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/who-needs-pay
⦁ The Delhi UK Visa Application Centre news
The UK Visa Application Centre now open 24 hours a day/ 5 days a week.
VFS and UKVI have announced that the Delhi Visa Application Centre is now open 24 hours a Day / 5 Days a week for one month starting 16 August 2017 until 15 September 2017.
Students can access late appointments and interviews with UKVI between 17:00 and 20:30. Open Monday to Friday, the service offers early (before 8am) and late (after 4pm) appointments, as well as additional appointments throughout the night. Charges for these services start at INR 6750 and come with complimentary access to the Premium Lounge at the VAC, as well as the benefit of a quicker application process at a lessc rowded VAC.
To make a booking or to find out more about this service, visit
https://www.vfsglobal.co.uk/india/user_pay_services.html or call +91 22 6786 6031.
⦁ UK Visas and Immigration Guidance - Chapter 1a: applications for fee waiver and refunds (22 August 2017) : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chapter-1a-applications-for-fee-waiver-and-refunds
Chapter 1a of the immigration directorate instructions deals with applications for fee waiver and refunds.
⦁ UK Visas and Immigration Guidance: Giving evidence in court (18 August 2017) : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/giving-evidence-in-court
UK Visas and Immigration modernised guidance for how it prepares and gives evidence in court, and what it expects when it gives evidence, and the rules of evidence.
⦁ UK Visas and Immigration Guidance: Tariff-expired removal scheme (21 August 2017) : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-tariff-expired-removal-scheme
UK Visas and Immigration guidance about the tariff-expired removal scheme (TERS) for foreign offenders.
⦁ Commissioning letter to the Migration Advisory Committee on students : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/commissioning-letter-to-the-migration-advisory-committee-on-students
The Home Secretary's commissioning letter to the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee on international students.
Recent case-law:
⦁ Arranz (EEA Regulations - deportation - test) [2017] (23 August 2017) : https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-294
(i) The burden of proving that a person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society under Regulation 21(5)(c) of the EEA Regulations rests on the Secretary of State.
(ii) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
(iii) Membership of an organisation proscribed under the laws of a foreign country does not without more satisfy the aforementioned test.
(iv) The “Bouchereau” exception is no longer good law: CS (Morroco) applied
⦁ Can an EEA national, who has been residing in the UK since 2008 and was exercising her Treaty Rights until 2010 become a Permanent Resident in the UK, provided that EEA national has been permanently incapacitated since 2008 ? Can that EEA national sponsor an overseas spouse to come to live with her in the UK ?
Yes, if the incapacity is permanent and it can be shown the EEA national resided in the UK for two or more years prior to the termination of her activity, then that EEA national may have acquired the Permanent Residence status in the UK. Accordingly, such an EEA national can also sponsor her spouse to come to live with her in the UK. Also, when that migrant spouse comes to the UK, that migrant spouse may immediately have a Permanent Residence status in the UK as the family member of an EEA National who has ceased activity under the Regulation 5(3):
(3) The condition in this paragraph is that the person terminates activity in the United Kingdom as a worker or self-employed person as a result of permanent incapacity to work; and—
(a)had resided in the United Kingdom continuously for more than two years prior to the termination
⦁ Upper Tribunal on readmission of EU nationals to attend deportation appeal hearings: https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-287
The UK now removes EU citizens and family members before their deportation appeal takes place. Obviously, this interferes with the life that the person has established in the UK (job and home may be lost, for example), in effect prejudges the outcome of the appeal, has a drastic impact on family members and also interferes somewhat with preparing the appeal. However, it is possible for such an individual to re-enter the UK for the purpose of attending the appeal hearing, for example to give evidence. This tribunal case addresses the test for readmission and the procedure.
The official headnote:
1. An application for Temporary Admission pursuant to Reg 29AA of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be granted unless the applicant’s appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security. Proportionality is not the test, and the cost of facilitating the applicant’s appearance is not a relevant consideration. The test is whether it can be said properly that there is the necessary basis for refusing leave pursuant to para 29AA(3).
2. “Appearance”, in this context, means presence in the UK for the purpose of attending the hearing (Kasicky doubted).
3. Where admission is granted for this purpose it must take place within a reasonable time to allow the applicant properly to instruct his solicitors. Normally, some 2 or 3 days before the hearing will be required.
⦁ Notes on the UK Spouse/Partner visa English language test
If you are taking an IELTS test make sure that you book it as the IELTS Test for the UKVI at the SELT location as otherwise it is unlikely to be accepted
See : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/635698/Approved_Secure_English_Language_Tests_and_Test_Centres.pdf
⦁ Notes on the Para 39E(2) refusals
There is no requirement to show exceptional circumstances to make a further application after a refusal under 39E(2). One will have the intial 14 days to do so during the one's Section 3C leave which continues after the refusal if the one has made an in-time application, and a further 14 day period after that as an overstayer.
⦁ Knowledge of language and Life in the UK Test exemption: long term physical or mental condition : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-in-the-uk-test-exemption-long-term-physical-or-mental-condition
Request an exemption from the knowledge of language and Life in the UK Test requirement because of a long term physical or mental condition.
⦁ Can the fresh documentary evidence be adduced at a later stage on appeal ?
One may add the the fresh documentary evidence on appeal as the bar on the fresh documentary evidence under the Section 85(5) (amended by the Immigration 2014 Act) no longer exists.
⦁ Can a Tier 1 Entrepreneur work elsewhere ?
Generally – no, with some exceptions : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605981/T1__E__Guidance_04_2017.pdf
Conditions of stay:
38. Permission to stay under this route will be subject to the following conditions :
…..
“c. no employment other than working for the business or businesses that you have established, joined or taken over but working for such business(es) does not include any work you do which is effectively employment with another business (for more details – see Annex A, A41), and
d. no employment as a professional sportsperson (including as a sports coach).
⦁ Leaked document on post Brexit immigration : https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/leaked-document-reveals-uk-brexit-plan-to-deter-eu-immigrants
The Guardian newspaper has obtained a copy of a leaked document setting out the government’s proposals on how to end free movement and what comes next. Why Commission the Migration Advisory Committee to advise you when you have a blueprint, right down to the naff icons, ready prepared? One that appears to envisage business as usual with EU nationals absorbed into something that looks very like the current immigration system, with no sign of fears that that system might crack under the strain.
As to the transitional period there are signs that the government is itching to make changes during it, for example to the rights of EU nationals to be joined by family members. And the document makes express that the government has Metock, Zambrano, and Surinder Singh in its sights.
⦁ European Union (Withdrawal) Bill papers (6 September 2017) : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8079
⦁ UK Visas and Immigration Guidance - Level of decision making: nationality procedure guidance : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/level-of-decision-making-nationality-procedure-guidance
Guidance on authority levels for decisions on nationality applications.
Despite its dull appearance, provides an inkling of which matters Home Office considers controversial in nationality applications.
⦁ Is curtailment of leave a variation of leave ? Can I migrant student carry on working for the permitted 20 hours while the leave was curtailed and that person is re-applying ?
Curtailment is not a variation of leave. It is exactly what it is – a curtailment. The student migrant would remain lawfully on the Tier 4 visa, assuming that the migrant student made an in time application for further leave to remain.