Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> Immigration tribunal starting to cancel appeal hearings where bundles served late
The immigration tribunal is piloting a new system of automatically “de-listing” (judge-speak for cancelling or adjourning) appeal hearings where an appellant serves their bundle late.
The judges do not receive bundles until the morning of hearing when they arrive at court, so it is hard to understand why the judiciary is suddenly so interested in enforcing compliance for its own sake. One can wonder whether the idea for this comes from the Home Office, which does have an interest — a legitimate one — in receiving appeal bundles in good time so that they can be allocated to Presenting Officers and a decision can be made on whether to defend the appeal.
07 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
11 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
Guidance UK Visas and Immigration uses when deciding applications for settlement by partners of members of the diplomatic service, British Council, HM forces or the Department for International Development (DFID).
13 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
Immigration judges must assess whether an asylum seeker had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in a safe third country before holding that a failure to do so should damage their credibility, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
KA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 914 concerns an unaccompanied child from Afghanistan who fled to the UK via Hungary, amongst other EU countries. He was fingerprinted by the Hungarian authorities but continued traveling to the UK.
The First-tier Tribunal decided that KA had not actually claimed asylum in Hungary and that this damaged his credibility. The Upper Tribunal went the other way, holding that KA had claimed asylum in Hungary, but that his failure to stay there and wait for the decision should be held against him.
Neither tribunal considered the possibility that he had no reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in Hungary. The Upper Tribunal making this error was horrible because it had been made aware of the decision in Ibrahimi & Abasi v SSHD [2016] EWHC 2049 (Admin), which held that there were systemic failings in the Hungarian asylum system.
This case should serve as a reminder to the tribunals to be cautious when finding that appellants should have claimed asylum elsewhere.
14 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
The percentage of immigration decisions being reversed by judges is at its highest on record, new statistics show. Over 50% of appeals to the immigration tribunal — mostly challenges to Home Office refusals to allow people to stay in the UK — succeeded in the last financial year.
The success rate on appeal has not dipped below 50% in any quarter since July-September 2017. The official data goes back over a decade, to 2007/08.
Human rights appeals were the most likely to be allowed, with a 58% success rate last year. The “EEA Free Movement” category were also above 50%, while appeals in the third category — asylum — are consistently less likely to succeed.
The percentages underscore the central role played by judges and the legal system in ensuring that immigration decisions are correctly made. They refer to the proportion of cases in which a determination was made, either after an oral hearing or on the papers. There were over 45,000 cases decided in 2018/19.
Today’s figures, published by the Ministry of Justice, also show an continuing decline in the number of appeals lodged in the first place. There were around 44,000 case receipts in 2018/19, compared to 92,000 in 2014/15 and 146,000 in 2010/11.
The average immigration appeal now takes 40 weeks to be decided, MoJ statisticians said. It used to take a year.
Tribunal bosses have put their foot down on fast track asylum appeals, refusing the government’s push for an accelerated process for appellants in immigration detention. The Tribunal Procedure Committee said that it would not be re-introducing a system like the Detained Fast Track that the courts found to be unlawful back in 2015. It pointed out that any such system would need so many safeguards to maintain some semblance of due process that it wouldn’t speed things up anyway.
The committee’s decision, published recently, is a victory for the seven expert organisations that responded to its consultation. All had opposed the return of Detained Fast Track.
18 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
"Customers applying for a UK visa will benefit from digital improvements to the UK visa application process. You will be able to self-upload your supporting evidence before attending your appointment at the Visa Application Centre (via Desktop or Mobile app).
This new process allows customers to prepare their set of supporting evidence in advance. This development is made available to customers using both our Standard and Priority Visa services.
If you wish to be assisted by our staff for the submission of your supporting evidence on the date of your visit to our Visa Application centre, you will have to select a specific appointment for an additional fee of 20 GBP (+VAT)."
>>> UKVI Correspondence: National Savings Premium Bonds can be accepted as cash savings in an Appendix FM application
From the Home Office:
"We...can confirm that income in premium bonds can be accepted as evidence of cash savings as they can be obtained within a very short period. The account is deemed as an investment account and provided that the applicant can meet all the other requirements, like statements to confirm that the savings have been held for at least 6 months"
>>> Home Office tries to tackle eGates problem that makes short-term study illegal
Short-term students are supposed to see an immigration officer
Under Part 3 of the Immigration Rules, non-visa nationals — that is, citizens of any country that is not on the visa national list at Appendix 2 of the Rules here, including all those mentioned above — can come to the UK for short-term study (‘STS’) of up to six months without getting a visa in advance. Those entering under this route also do not need to be sponsored under Tier 4 of the Points Based System.
Instead, they can get immigration permission to study a short course directly from the Border Force officer on arrival in the UK. This is in the form of a stamp placed into the passport confirming that the student has the right to study under the STS route. (Anyone from a country on the visa national list and those planning to study English language for up to 11 months must apply for prior entry clearance.)
Unfortunately the introduction of eGates has meant that some students who should have seen a Border Force officer and been entered into the UK under the STS route have instead come in through an eGate. This means that they are in the UK as a visitor, not a student.
This is important because under Appendix V of the Immigration Rules, anyone who is in the UK as a visitor can only study in the UK for up to 30 days during their visit providing study is not the main purpose for their visit (unless they are a school child on an educational visit or exchange).
19 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
The Supreme Court has today dismissed the Home Office appeal in the case of Gubeladze [2019] UKSC 31. The judgment affects hundreds of thousands of EU citizens from the so-called Accession Eight (or “A8”) countries that joined the EU in 2004 and means that the United Kingdom unlawfully imposed a registration system, known as the Worker Registration Scheme, on these citizens between 2009 and 2011.
The issue in this case was not whether it was lawful to impose transitional arrangements at all but whether the particular transitional arrangements that were imposed were lawful. Mrs Gubeladze argued that the requirements of the Worker Registration Scheme were disproportionate in EU law, imposing too heavy a burden on EU citizens and on employers for very little purpose.
The scheme created a criminal offence for employers, the cost for workers was £90 and evidence suggested that non-compliance by relevant workers, which was likely accidental in almost all cases, was as high as 33%. Non-compliance would affect entitlement to claim benefits, acquisition of permanent residence and, ultimately, eligibility for British citizenship.
Implications of the judgment in practice
The judgment means that the extension of the Worker Registration Scheme between 2009 and 2011 was unlawful. In turn, this suggests several things:
- All those A8 EU citizens who paid the £90 fee to register between 2009 and 2011 should in theory be refunded their payments. A fee needed to be paid for every job, so a person moving between jobs may have had to make several payments.
- EU citizens who sought permanent residence on the basis of five years’ lawful residence and were refused because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 were wrongly refused permanent residence.
- EU citizens who were refused British citizenship for not meeting either the residence or good character requirements because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 should ask for their decisions to be reconsidered.
- Any retirees denied benefits and permanent residence because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011, like Mrs Gubeladze herself, should ask that these decisions be reconsidered and seek legal advice on whether they are eligible for back payments.
- Anyone convicted of the criminal offences associated with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 should consider getting legal advice to see if their conviction might be overturned.
Over 100,000 people applied to the WRS in 2009 alone, government figures show.
20 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
21 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
24 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Upper Tribunal has the same power as the High Court to set aside a decision to grant permission for judicial review. In R (Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1014, the Upper Tribunal set aside an earlier grant of permission because the Home Office had been prevented from attending the permission hearing due to a misunderstanding.
This week the Court of Appeal quashed the certification of an Albanian asylum claim as “clearly unfounded”. In SP (Albania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 951, the court found that the Home Office had not properly investigated the appellant’s account of being persecuted before deciding to certify the claim under section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, contrary to its own policy on certification.
The court also gave helpful guidance on issuing “clearly unfounded” certificates, stating that the Home Office cannot certify asylum claims without first giving proper attention to all salient features of the case. Certificates under section 94(2) should only be given if, after assessing all the facts and the evidence provided, it’s clear that the claim is so clearly without substance that it is “bound to fail”, as was held in ZL & VL v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 25.
25 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
"The Home Secretary Sajid Javid has today (Monday 24 June) asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review and advise on salary thresholds for the future immigration system, which will start to take effect from 2021.
The Migration Advisory Committee previously recommended that the government should retain the existing minimum salary thresholds in the future immigration system, which includes paying experienced workers at least £30,000, and new entrants (including recent graduates) at least £20,800.
The Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to consider how future salary thresholds should be calculated, the levels of salary thresholds, whether there is a case for regional salary thresholds for different parts of the UK, and whether there should be exceptions to salary thresholds, for example because they’ve newly started the occupation or because they work in an occupation in shortage.
After publishing plans for the new skills-based immigration system in December 2018, the government has embarked on a year-long engagement programme with business and employers up and down the UK.
In the white paper, the government said it would engage with businesses and employers on the salary threshold. Since then, the Home Office has held over 100 events across the UK, engaging 1,500 stakeholders representing businesses and employers. It has also set up five advisory groups to deepen engagement between government and industry.
The new immigration system will mark the end of free movement and introduce a new route for skilled workers which favours experience and talent over nationality.
It already includes measures designed to support business, such as:
-removing the cap on skilled worker numbers
- speeding up processing times for work visas
- scrapping resident labour market tests
- widening the skills thresholds so that anyone with the equivalent of A levels can apply under the new skilled workers route
To help organisations adjust to the new system, as a transitional measure, there will be a temporary work route allowing workers from some countries to come for a year and work, open to all skill levels.
The Migration Advisory Committee is expected to report back by January 2020 when the government will consider all the evidence before finalising plans. The new immigration system will be phased in from 2021.
Banger (EEA: EFM – Right of Appeal) [2019] UKUT 194 (IAC) has finally reached the end of the road. This is the case that went up to the Court of Justice of the European Union on, essentially, two issues:
- Does the Surinder Singh route apply to durable parters? and
- Are extended family members entitled to a full appeal on the merits, rather than a judicial review on an error of law?
The CJEU said “yes” to both, as we reported at the time: Court of Justice finds Surinder Singh applies to extended family members.
The case has now returned to the Upper Tribunal for a final decision, some six years after Ms Banger was first refused a residence card. Those who benefit from this decision should spare a thought for the stress, inconvenience and cost to which the lead litigant has been exposed over these years and the hard work put in by her legal team.
The Home Office had already agreed to issue a residence card to Ms Banger (although failed to actually issue it). The appeal nevertheless proceeded at Ms Banger’s request.
There is a tranche of extended family members who have been denied a proper statutory right of appeal. After the disastrously wrong Sala case, extended family members were wrongly denied a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Once Sala was overturned, those affected could go ahead and lodge an appeal and request an extension of time.
In the meantime, though, the Home Office had brought into effect the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which denied the same right of appeal on a statutory basis. An amendment conferring a right of appeal under the 2016 regulations was eventually laid in response to the CJEU Banger judgment. This right of appeal was not retrospective, though, meaning that there were an unknown number of people who received decisions under the 2016 regulations before the amendment took effect who had no statutory right of appeal.
The tribunal says those affected can do one of two things:
- Ask the Home Office for a new decision and then appeal that, or
- Just get on with it and lodge an appeal, making sure an extension of time is requested"
The second option is quicker and more convenient and is available because of the direct effect of EU law and the terms of the CJEU Banger judgment.
Where a company sponsors a worker from overseas to fill a vacancy in the UK they must only do so if that vacancy is “genuine”.
The case of R (Suny) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1019 arose from a disagreement between a sponsored worker and the Home Office about the genuineness of a vacancy that a sponsoring company was attempting to fill.
Unusually in this case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the visa applicant that the Secretary of State had crossed the “notoriously high” irrationality threshold in deciding that no genuine vacancy existed.
27 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
Detention in a young offender institution has much the same impact on an EU citizen’s enhanced protection against deportation as imprisonment in an adult jail, the Court of Appeal has held. The case is Secretary of State for the Home Department v Viscu [2019] EWCA Civ 1052.
1. Applications for short-term visas, EEA family permits, Tier 5 and Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent)
You can make applications for a visit visa, a short-term study visa, an EEA family permit, Tier 5 or Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) entry clearance in any visa application centre, British diplomatic mission or consular post overseas where entry clearance applications are accepted.
You should be present legally in the country or territory you’re applying from.
2. Applications for other entry clearance
Applications for other types of entry clearance should be made in the country in which you are living.
28 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> Rules and options for extending the UK Visitor visas
Extension of stay as a visitor
It is possible to extend stay as a visitor only in very limited circumstances under the rules. In exceptional circumstances and application outside the rules might be contemplated, however.
An extension is explicitly ruled out for a PPE visitor or transit visitor. Other types of visitor can potentially apply to extend their stay if they meet the following criteria:
An application for an extension of stay as a visitor must satisfy the decision maker that they continue to meet all the suitability and eligibility requirements for a visit visa.
The applicant must not be in the UK in breach of immigration laws, except for any period of overstaying of 28 days or less which will be discounted.
If the applicant is applying for an extension of stay as a visitor for the purpose of receiving private medical treatment they must also satisfy the decision maker they:
(a) have met the costs of any medical treatment received so far; and
(b) provide a letter from a registered medical practitioner, at a private practice or NHS hospital, who holds an NHS consultant post or who appears in the Specialist Register of the General Medical Council, detailing the medical condition requiring further treatment.
The following extensions of stay are permissible:
A standard visitor or a visitor for marriage or civil partnership who was granted a visit visa or leave to enter for less than 6 months may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor so that the total period they can remain the UK (including both the original grant and the extension of stay) does not exceed 6 months.
A standard visitor who is in the UK for private medical treatment may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor for a further 6 months, provided this is for private medical treatment.
Standard visitor who is an academic on sabbatical leave and is in the UK undertaking their own research, or the spouse, partner or child accompanying such an academic, can be granted an extension of stay as a visitor so that the total period they can remain in the UK (including both the original grant and the extension of stay) does not exceed 12 months.
A standard visitor may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor for up to 6 months in order to resit the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) Test, provided they meet the requirements at Appendix 3, paragraph 22(b)(i) of the main Immigration Rules.
A standard visitor who is successful in the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board Test may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor to undertake a clinical attachment, provided they meet the requirements of Appendix 3, paragraph 22(a) so that the total period they can remain in the UK (including both the original grant and the extension of stay) does not exceed 18 months.
There is no provision in the rules for extensions of stay beyond these limits.
>>> Some visitors in the UK can work, did you know ? Enter the Permitted Paid Engagement (PPE) visitors
PPE visitors are allowed to do any of the activities listed in Visitor Appendix 3 that a standard visitor can do, but they must also meet the additional requirements of Part V6:
"An applicant must intend to do one (or more) of the permitted paid engagements set out in Appendix 4 to these Rules, which must:
(a) be arranged before the applicant travels to the UK; and
(b) be declared as part of the application for a visit visa or leave to enter; and
(c) be evidenced by a formal invitation, as required by Appendix 4; and
(d) relate to the applicant’s area of expertise and occupation overseas".
Visitors Appendix 4 then sets out what is meant by a “permitted paid engagement” for the purpose of a visit visa:
"(a) an academic who is highly qualified within his or her field of expertise
may examine students and/or participate in or chair selection panels, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution or a UK based research or arts organisation as part of that institution or organisation’s quality assurance processes.
(b) An expert may give lectures in their subject area, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution; or a UK based research or arts organisation provided this does not amount to filling a teaching position for the host organisation.
(c) An overseas designated pilot examiner may assess UK based pilots to ensure they meet the national aviation regulatory requirements of other countries, if they have been invited by an approved training organisation based in the UK that is regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for that purpose.
(d) A qualified lawyer may provide advocacy for a court or tribunal hearing, arbitration or other form of dispute resolution for legal proceedings within the UK, if they have been invited by a client.
(e) A professional artist, entertainer, musician or sports person may carry out an activity directly relating to their profession, if they have been invited by a creative (arts or entertainment) or sports organisation, agent or broadcaster based in the UK"
>>> Steps on how to prepare a good Entry Clearance application for a Visitor visa
Because everyone’s situation is different it is hard to give general guidance but there are some simple hints and tips that can be followed to help reduce the chances of an unnecessary refusal:
- Check the form carefully and get someone else to check it. Entry Clearance Officers can be very unforgiving of errors and omissions.
- Make sure all the questions are answered.
- Answer every question carefully and truthfully. Refusals on the basis of suspected deception can be easy to trigger through a thoughtless answer and can be hard to overturn.
- Check the immigration history carefully and specifically about previous refusals for or removal from any country (not just the UK).
- Assume that the application will be considered by a person who will assume everyone is lying unless you can prove otherwise with independent and verifiable evidence. For example, if you do not include with the application three months of continuous bank statements showing a positive balance and at least some savings then it is highly likely the application will be refused on maintenance and accommodation grounds and also intention to return grounds.
- If the application is to be decided by a high refusal rate application centre, go to extra effort to obtain high quality evidence to support the application that goes beyond the evidence asked for on the application form.
- Use a covering letter to explain in more detail the reasons for the visit, plans for the visit, circumstances at home (finances, family ties, employment) and what documents have been included in the application. A numbered list of documents is very useful, particularly if you write corresponding numbers on the documents themselves, so that your cover letter is effectively a contents page for the application. The easier the Entry Clearance Officer finds it to understand the application and its circumstances, the more likely the application will be successful
29 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
Migrants who have spent ten years in the UK with continuous and lawful leave can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
Can leave be “continuous” if it involved short gaps between lawful periods of leave where an applicant has overstayed? This was the question addressed by the Court of Appeal in R (Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1070.
Apparently, the Court of Appeal said "Yes". You have been warned...
>>> Caution about the applications with the children who turn 18 AFTER the application was submitted
“If a child applied to come to the UK at the age of, for example, 17, was refused and appealed, but at the date of the appeal hearing the child turns 18, then the Section 85(4) comes into play and therefore the child cannot meet the rules under para 297(ii)”
Just a warning that if it comes to an appeal the Home Office may be entitled to treat the Appellant as over 18.
In other words, if an appellant will have turned 18 by the time of the appeal, although the appellant may meet the relevant requirement by that time, the conditions at the time of the appeal will be that the appellant is over 18 and hence the appeal cannot be allowed as the appellant would not meet the rules at that time, even though the Appellant was under 18 at the date of application.
In this case the argument in the court could be on the so-called proportionality basis, for example, Kugathas v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 31.
Therefore, it is paramount to prepare the Entry Clearance etc application as beast as possible as otherwise the child, who turns 18 at the date of the hearing, may not succeed with the appeal.
29 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> Change to type of visa vignette used for the UK Visit visas - now the visas will be red in colour
From the Home Office:
"We wanted to alert you to an imminent change in the type of vignette (visa sticker) used for Visit visas.
Visit visas are, as you know, currently printed on CAT-C (green) vignettes. Starting on 01 July they will be printed on CAT-D (red). Example images can be seen in attachment. This change does not affect your clients or customers in general, in any way. Existing Visit visas printed on green vignettes will still be good for travel for the duration of validity."
01 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> The BBC's film about "Who Should Get to Stay in the UK?" provides a detailed outlook at the migrants' journey through different UK immigration routes. Did you think that the immigration was easy ? Have a look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005x77
Staff shortages mean that the immigration inspector’s office is struggling to effectively scrutinise the work of the Home Office, according to the organisation’s annual report. There are supposed to be 25 inspectors working under chief David Bolt, but by the end of March 2019 there were just 11 in post.
The inspectorate operated at two-thirds strength across the whole of last year and “is likely to be significantly under strength for at least the first half of 2019-20”, Bolt said.
The staffing troubles seem to be caused by high turnover compounded by difficulty recruiting civil servants — inspectors have traditionally come from the Home Office itself — as well as security clearance holding up external recruitment. The organisation managed only seven published reports in 2018/19 — compared to 20 the previous year.
02 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
03 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> Sopra Steria to start charging for documents scanning during the biometric appointments
From the Home Office:
"Dear colleague,
We are writing to update you on UK Visas and Immigration’s (UKVI) front end services for UK customers. We’d like to inform you of Sopra Steria’s plans to introduce assisted scanning charges at their core service points.
As you will already be aware, the UK Visa and Citizenship Application Service (UKVCAS) run by Sopra Steria, was launched in November 2018. UKVCAS currently provides six core service points, where free appointments are available to customers during core hours (10:00-16:00), with payable slots available outside of these hours. Demand is currently very high for free appointments and we appreciate your patience whilst we work closely with Sopra Steria to ensure that the capacity for free appointments is maximised.
In additional to the six core sites, there are 50 enhanced service points that customers can use for a fee, plus a premium lounge offering superior comfort and privacy.
Since the launch of UKVCAS, customers visiting a core service point have been able to conveniently self-upload supporting documentation before they visit the service point. They have also had access to the assisted scanning service offered by Sopra Steria free of charge.
From 22 July, customers who book an appointment at one of the 6 core sites who do not wish to use the self-upload function may utilise the assisted scanning service but at a cost of £45. This is a flat rate, regardless of the number of documents to be scanned and must be paid before the customer attends their appointment at the core service point. The self-upload option remains free to customers and recent changes to this service will allow customers to preview their documents before uploading to their account. The fee for document scanning is in addition to the appointment booking charge if a customer choses an out of hours appointment.
If a customer chooses not to self-upload their supporting evidence ahead of the visit to a core service point, the £45 charge must be paid before they attend their appointment. If a customer has not made a payment prior to their appointment they risk being turned away and having to rebook their appointment.
The premium lounge and enhanced service points continue to offer document scanning during the appointment as part of the overall service. This £45 fee is only for those wishing to use the assisted scanning service at one of the 6 core sites.
For any further information or if you have any questions, please contact Sopra Steria directly. In the meantime, we hope this clarifies Sopra Steria's plans to introduce assisted scanning charges at their core service points.
The High Court has ordered the Home Office to return an asylum seeker to the UK from Uganda because her 2013 asylum appeal hearing was unfair. PN v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1616 (Admin) is the latest in a series of cases about the consequences of the Court of Appeal finding that the Detained Fast Track appeal system was unlawful because it created a risk of systemic unfairness. This is the first time that the Home Office has been ordered to return an asylum seeker to the UK because of an unfair appeal.
>>> Government to drop 45-day time limit on support for trafficking victims
The government has promised to abandon the strict 45-day time limit on help for victims of human trafficking following a judicial review challenge. The litigation, organised by Duncan Lewis, has forced the Home Office to concede that the 45-day policy is incompatible with the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking convention and must be replaced with a “needs-based” system.
Victims of human trafficking are entitled to £65 per week, accommodation at a safe house and a support worker. Last April, the High Court had found that there was a “real risk of irreparable harm to a significant number of vulnerable victims of slavery and trafficking if their support were to end after 45 days”. Mr Justice Julian Knowles ordered that support for victims carry on for longer, pending a full judicial review hearing. That hearing was due to take place in a few days’ time.
04 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
Use the link to request the (due) refunds for the IHS overpayments
>>> Interesting query re: Appendix FM and applications for children of one settled parent.
It was noted that the rules do not allow for switching from one category to another. Rules say that a child can apply in the UK to switch to another category to be the dependant of a parent with settled status and parent with source of settled status dependant only if that parent had been granted leave to remain and not leave to enter. The UK BA Policy Department was contacted, and they said it is possible even if the rules are somehow drafted in a way which implies you cannot. The relevant Rules need to be changed ASAP, and this brings the (never ending) confusion.
Minor applicants (up to 21 years of age) are linked to their parents’ application and given the same status as the parent, regardless of the time lived in the UK.
Namely:
Eligibility for ILR
Paragraph 7
7. (a) The applicant is a child under the age of 21 years of a relevant EEA citizen, or of their spouse or civil partner, and either:
(i) The marriage was contracted or the civil partnership was formed before the specified date; or
(ii) The person who is now their spouse or civil partner was the durable partner of the relevant EEA citizen before the specified date (the definition of durable partner in Annex 1 being met before that date rather than at the date of application) and the partnership remained durable at the specified date; and
(b) The relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, their spouse or civil partner):
(i) Has been or is being granted indefinite leave to enter or remain under this Appendix (or under its equivalent in the Islands); or
(ii) (In the case of a person who is an Irish citizen as a matter of Irish law and who has not made a valid application under this Appendix) would be granted that leave if they made such an application
05 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> Sopra Steria terminates controversial immigration advice service after conflict of interest complaints
The outsourcing giant in charge of processing visa applications made in the UK has stopped offering legal advice on applications following an outcry from immigration lawyers.
UK Visa and Citizenship Application Services, operated on behalf of the Home Office by French firm Sopra Steria, had been touting a legal advice service to visa applicants. The firm recommended, World Migration Services, is owned by a company called BLS International — itself involved in visa processing as a subcontractor for Sopra Steria.
The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) complained that the arrangement was a potential conflict of interest, and risked giving migrants the impression that their visa application would be treated more favourably if they took advice on it from a firm connected to the application process.
The World Migration Services office, at 20 Mark Lane in the City of London, was actually on the same site as a visa application centre.
ILPA has now reported that Sopra Steria has terminated its relationship with BLS International. The UK Visa and Citizenship Application Services website no longer carries BLS branding or offers immigration advice.
In February 2019, ILPA wrote to a senior official at UK Visas and Immigration to highlight “apparent bias and perceived lack of independence”. The letter complained that
"Given that BLS International and Sopra Steria advertise themselves as ‘official partners’ of UKVI, replete with UKVI branding, a reasonable applicant would be under the impression that the decision-maker may behave favourably towards applications by those supported by WMS, and by implication less favourably than this towards those supported by all competing firms. ILPA submits that this is contrary to well-established public law principles: putting the point at its highest, this arrangement risks bias or the impression of bias on the part of Home Office decision-makers; at the very least, the Home Office has not taken into account the possibility that apparent bias may be engaged here.
This was followed up in May. The second letter highlighted “serious concerns regarding Sopra Steria/BLS International staff behaviour”. It also noted that “BLS International are ‘cold calling’ universities to offer immigration advice through WMS”.
An ILPA circular to members today says that Sopra Steria is “no longer subcontracting immigration services to BLS International… this means that there should no longer be advertisements for BLS International or World Migration Services on the UKVI ‘customer journey'”.
Asked for comment, Sopra Steria confirmed that it had taken over the running of the Premium Lounge visa application centre formerly at 20 Mark Lane from BLS International. It added that this was “just one of 57 service points located around the UK. All affected customers have been contacted and Premium Lounge services have continued with minimal impact to the service quality. All impacted staff have been consulted”.
08 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
An employer’s guide to right to work checks: 28 January 2019
"Outstanding applications, appeals and administrative reviews
If you request verification from the Employer Checking Service because the employee or potential employee has an outstanding application with us or appeal or administrative review against a Home Office decision, you should wait at least 14 days after the application, appeal or administrative review has been delivered or posted to us or the court, before requesting a verification check. This is because it takes this amount of time for most applications, appeals or administrative reviews to be registered with the Home Office.
In order to make the verification request with the Employer Checking Service, you must obtain confirmation from your employee or potential employee of when the application, appeal or administrative review was made to the Home Office. This information must be included in the request form.
The Employer Checking Service aims to provide a response within 5 working days of receiving a valid request. It is your responsibility to inform the person you intend to employ, or continue employing, that you are carrying out this check on them, to complete the verification request correctly and to make the request at least 14 days after the date of the application, appeal or administrative review was delivered or posted."
10 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
Parliament’s human rights committee has hit out at the controversial “good character” test in child citizenship applications, saying that it is “inappropriate” to disqualify British-born youngsters from citizenship because of petty misdemeanors.
In a report published today, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says that “an unduly heavy-handed approach to the good character requirement is depriving children who have lived in the UK all of their lives from their right to British citizenship”.
The committee was ostensibly reviewing a draft government Order to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to eliminate historic gender discrimination. It concluded that the Order would address human rights problems identified in the Supreme Court cases of Johnson and Bangs, and recommended that it be approved by Parliament.
But the committee also went off-piste with a look at wider problems in nationality law, taking particular exception to the good character requirement being applied to children registering for British citizenship.
12 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
In 2016 the Home Office embarked on an attempt to homogenise the application processes for immigration applications made under EU law and those made under UK law. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed in Rehman (EEA Regulations 2016 – specified evidence) [2019] UKUT 195 (IAC) that there are limits to how prescriptive the Home Office can be when it comes to the former, also known as EEA applications.
The decision means that EU citizens or their family members who are turned down for residence documents due to Home Office inflexibility on the exact paperwork required should have a good chance on appeal. In practice, it will still be better to comply with what officials think the law is where possible.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Rehman
Residence card application rejected as invalid
In Rehman the Home Office had rejected a residence card application from a Pakistani man who sought to rely on a “retained right of residence” following divorce from his EU citizen spouse. It was accepted that all of the requirements for a retained right of residence were met — but the ex-wife’s passport had not been included.
It can be particularly difficult to obtain this in retained right of residence cases as the applicant has, by definition, divorced the person who had effectively been sponsoring them. Sometimes the separation is amicable and the former spouse is happy to help by providing documents. Sometime they are not.
As the passport had not been provided with Mr Rehman’s application, the Home Office rejected it with reference to regulation 21. An appeal was lodged and dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal. Mr Rehman appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Insistence on particular documents not allowed by EU law
The Upper Tribunal began by recognising that EU law does allow administrative procedures to be put in place to ensure consistency. But:
…the “supporting documents required” cannot go beyond the requirements of the Directive or what is strictly necessary to establish the relevant right of residence under European Union law… provisions introduced for administrative convenience must not go beyond what is required to establish a right of residence.
In Mr Rehman’s case, this is what had happened. The Home Office had accepted that the requirements for a retained right of residence had been met. The only reason they rejected the application was due to a failure to provide a particular document (the passport). Requiring this document went beyond what was needed to establish a right of residence. It is not required by EU law, which takes priority over the 2016 Regulations:
The provisions contained in regulations 21 and 42 must be interpreted to conform with European Union law. If the provision does not conform with European Union law on the facts of a case, it must be read to conform. In some cases, this might involve ignoring the requirement for specified evidence altogether if a document is not in fact required to establish a right of residence.
As such, Mr Rehman’s appeal was allowed. He met the requirements and it did not matter that he had not provided his former partner’s passport.
This will not necessarily apply in every case. It was the blanket nature of the rule which the Upper Tribunal objected to. Sometimes there could be justification for requiring submission of the EEA national’s passport. For instance the Tribunal recognises that:
If there was any doubt that the appellant had been married to an EEA national as claimed the respondent could lawfully require the production of his former wife’s passport, but this was not an issue in this case. The respondent accepted that the appellant was married to an EEA national when he issued the previous residence card. Indeed, the respondent accepted that the appellant met the requirements of regulation 10(5).
So it seems we are back to the pre-2016 Regulations position of preferring substance over form, at least in theory.
What does this mean in practice?
So should the applicants all start disregarding the Home Office’s EEA application procedures, ignoring the forms and the mandatory specified documents? No.
In practice it will be much easier to comply. Notwithstanding the decision in Rehman, the Home Office is likely to carry on as if nothing has changed.
It is much easier to implement a strict box-ticking exercise which can be carried out by administrative staff at an early stage of the application process, rather than engage in an overall assessment of the case before deciding whether to accept an application as valid.
If an application is rejected solely because a particular document is missing, it is likely that an appeal would be successful providing that the requirements for a residence card can be met. The decision in Rehman therefore provides a fall back for anyone who is not able to provide the documents required under the EEA Regulations.
However for the majority of applicants it will be quicker and easier to avoid the need for an appeal to the tribunal by following the Home Office’s preferred application process and providing the documents requested by the Regulations, forms, and guidance.
The official headnote
The principles outlined in Barnett and Others (EEA Regulations; rights and documentation) [2012] UKUT 00142 are equally applicable to The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. Section 1 of Schedule 1 to these regulations provides that the sole ground of appeal is that the decision breaches the appellant’s rights under the EU Treaties in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom. The provisions contained in regulations 21 and 42 must be interpreted in the light of European Union law. In some cases, this might involve ignoring the requirement for specified evidence altogether if a document is not in fact required to establish a right of residence.
16 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
“Our commercial partner, TLScontact have introduced an added value service which offers settlement visa customers (overseas) applying in a TLScontact location and their sponsors the option to submit supporting documents at a scanning location in the UK. It also advises of the changes to PO Box 3468.”
In Smith (appealable decisions; PTA requirements; anonymity : Belgium) [2019] UKUT 216 (IAC), President Lane and Upper Tribunal Judges Gill and Finch provide important guidance on jurisdiction in EEA deportation and Article 8 appeals and the correct procedure for raising “cross appeals” in the Upper Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal has taken a restrictive approach to the admission of new evidence before the Upper Tribunal that was not available before the First-tier Tribunal. The case is Kabir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1162,
In Kabir, the First-tier Tribunal had refused an application made for an adjournment to obtain further evidence. Mr Kabir, having got his hands on that further evidence, then launched an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that the First-tier Tribunal should have granted an adjournment, but in any case that the Upper Tribunal should reconsider the decision using the fresh evidence. The Upper Tribunal refused.
A cross-party group of MPs has published a highly critical report on the Home Office’s treatment of visit visa applicants from Africa. It forms part of an ongoing inquiry into the high level of visa refusals for Africans seeking to visit the UK for professional or business reasons.
The report has been issued jointly by three All Party Parliamentary Groups: the APPG for Africa; the APPG for Diaspora, Development and Migration; and the APPG for Malawi.
The following 4 core issues have been identified:
1. Practical and logistical barriers
2. Inconsistent and/or careless decision-making
3. Perceived lack of procedural fairness
4. Financial discrimination in decision-making
Helpful and just interesting updates on the UK and EEA immigration law from the Legal Centre, who can help you with any immigration issue. www.legalcentre.org Mob/WhatsApp/Viber: +44(0)7791145923, Office: +44(0)3300010342
In the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v PG (Jamaica)[2019] EWCA Civ 1213 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “unduly harsh” in deportation cases, overturning the decisions of both of the tribunals that had previously heard the appeal.
19 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> Can a PBS Dependent obtain a leave on the basis of Domestic Violence ?
>>> UKVI refuse to disclose numbers of Innovator and Start-up visas granted after FOIA request :
“Information Requested:
• Whether the Secretary of State has granted entry clearance or leave to enter/remain in respect of an application under Part 6 of Appendix W in respect of the Innovator category, and if so, which were the endorsing bodies concerned, and in which industry sectors did the innovator(s) apply.
Home Office’s Response:
I can confirm that the Home Office holds some of the information that you have requested. However, after careful consideration we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information can be withheld if it is intended for future publication.
Section 22 of the Act is a qualified exemption and requires consideration of the”
That means that the amount of the approved application has either been “zero” or extremely low, thus defeating the point of the programmes.
Now the Guidance is ..308 pages ! The Home Office now almost formerly makes the Employers to instruct the reputable and experienced lawyers like the Legal Centre (www.legalcentre.org) to work through hundreds of pages of various Guidance Notes and endless Addendums…
According to the Home Office, the following categories of migrants are exempts from paying the skills surcharge:
“When you do not need to pay
You will not pay the immigration skills charge if the worker you’re sponsoring:
• has a Tier 4 (Student) visa and is switching to a Tier 2 (General) visa
• has a Tier 2 (Intra-company Transfer) Graduate Trainee visa
• will do a job with a PhD-level standard occupational classification (SOC) code
You will not need to pay the charge for any of the worker’s dependants, for example their partner or child.”
22 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
>>> The Home Office has indicated again that they may be introducing a Premium Service in relation to the Nationality (AN, MN1 etc) applications.
24 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
The High Court has ruled that the Home Office can ignore a grant of immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal if there is a material change of circumstances before the person is released. R (AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1969 (Admin) is about the familiar situation where someone is granted conditional bail while accommodation is arranged, but during the wait for housing there is an important change in circumstances. Can the Home Office lawfully ignore the tribunal’s decision to grant bail?
Unfortunately, the High Court says that this is exactly what the Home Office is allowed to do.
25 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
These Regulations may be cited as the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and come into force on 15th August 2019.
>>> Migration Advisory Committee review of the Shortage Occupation List
On 29 May, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published the outcome of its full review of the Shortage Occupation List (SOL). I am very grateful to the MAC for a very thorough and comprehensive piece of work. The MAC recommended a number of changes to the main UK-wide SOL, expanding the list to cover a range of high-skilled occupations, including a number of health and social care, engineering and digital technology occupations.
The Government is happy to accept all of the MAC’s recommendations on the composition of the SOL and the necessary amendments will be made in the Autumn Immigration Rules changes.
The MAC also suggested that, in order to combat the particular challenges faced by some remote communities, the Government should pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas. The Government accepts that this is an idea worth pursuing. Further details will be given in due course.
If a foreign criminal wins their deportation appeal, can the Home Office try and deport them again, even where there has been no further offending?
In MA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1252, the Court of Appeal considered this question and held that the answer is yes.
26 July 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923
This guidance tells caseworkers how to process applications for entry clearance, leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the child or partner of a migrant with leave to enter or remain under part 5, paragraphs 128 to 193 (excluding 135I to 135K) of the Immigration Rules.
Комментарии
>>> Immigration tribunal starting to cancel appeal hearings where bundles served late
The immigration tribunal is piloting a new system of automatically “de-listing” (judge-speak for cancelling or adjourning) appeal hearings where an appellant serves their bundle late.
The judges do not receive bundles until the morning of hearing when they arrive at court, so it is hard to understand why the judiciary is suddenly so interested in enforcing compliance for its own sake. One can wonder whether the idea for this comes from the Home Office, which does have an interest — a legitimate one — in receiving appeal bundles in good time so that they can be allocated to Presenting Officers and a decision can be made on whether to defend the appeal.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Updated guidance on processing applications for an administrative review: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjM1tWJ-NbiAhXQzIUKHWIHAksQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/796899/Admin-review-guidance-v9.0.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1r-pdY8oksKvMnfMqP7GP7
>>> Supporting documents for a visa application - the current options for the applicants: https://www.vfsglobal.co.uk/in/en/vacs/supporting-documents
>>> UKVI Guidance: About our services: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration/about-our-services?utm_source=4aedb86e-5752-4481-ae8b-9268e7919c9b&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for decisions about who can come to the UK and who can stay here.
Updated settlement application standards.
>>> Partners of members of the diplomatic service, British Council, HM forces or DFID: SET06 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/partners-of-members-of-the-diplomatic-service-british-council-hm-forces-or-dfid-set06?utm_source=da286932-9327-476b-bf56-72089e4a097e&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Guidance UK Visas and Immigration uses when deciding applications for settlement by partners of members of the diplomatic service, British Council, HM forces or the Department for International Development (DFID).
>>> UKVI Form: Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) endorsement review form: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-for-endorsement-for-tier-1-exceptional-talent-visa?utm_source=efbea2a1-8466-44f3-ad6b-a2b5a6134f24&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Form to apply for a Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) endorsement review.
>>> Leave to remain with NRPF - change of conditions: http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information/Pages/change-of-conditions.aspx
How to reinstate the ability to receive benefits following the Home Office's decision that the applicant cannot use the public funds
>>> Helpful case on when failure to claim asylum in a safe country damages credibility: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/914.html
Immigration judges must assess whether an asylum seeker had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in a safe third country before holding that a failure to do so should damage their credibility, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
KA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 914 concerns an unaccompanied child from Afghanistan who fled to the UK via Hungary, amongst other EU countries. He was fingerprinted by the Hungarian authorities but continued traveling to the UK.
The First-tier Tribunal decided that KA had not actually claimed asylum in Hungary and that this damaged his credibility. The Upper Tribunal went the other way, holding that KA had claimed asylum in Hungary, but that his failure to stay there and wait for the decision should be held against him.
Neither tribunal considered the possibility that he had no reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in Hungary. The Upper Tribunal making this error was horrible because it had been made aware of the decision in Ibrahimi & Abasi v SSHD [2016] EWHC 2049 (Admin), which held that there were systemic failings in the Hungarian asylum system.
This case should serve as a reminder to the tribunals to be cautious when finding that appellants should have claimed asylum elsewhere.
>>> Poor quality of the Home Office's decisions as 50% of all immigration appeals now succeed: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2019
The percentage of immigration decisions being reversed by judges is at its highest on record, new statistics show. Over 50% of appeals to the immigration tribunal — mostly challenges to Home Office refusals to allow people to stay in the UK — succeeded in the last financial year.
The success rate on appeal has not dipped below 50% in any quarter since July-September 2017. The official data goes back over a decade, to 2007/08.
Human rights appeals were the most likely to be allowed, with a 58% success rate last year. The “EEA Free Movement” category were also above 50%, while appeals in the third category — asylum — are consistently less likely to succeed.
The percentages underscore the central role played by judges and the legal system in ensuring that immigration decisions are correctly made. They refer to the proportion of cases in which a determination was made, either after an oral hearing or on the papers. There were over 45,000 cases decided in 2018/19.
Today’s figures, published by the Ministry of Justice, also show an continuing decline in the number of appeals lodged in the first place. There were around 44,000 case receipts in 2018/19, compared to 92,000 in 2014/15 and 146,000 in 2010/11.
The average immigration appeal now takes 40 weeks to be decided, MoJ statisticians said. It used to take a year.
You can avoid the hassles of the appeals by instructing the Legal Centre to help you with your immigration case from the outset. See https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html
>>> Tribunal says no to return of fast track asylum appeals: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-tribunal-procedure-first-tier-tribunal-immigration-and-asylum-chamber-rules-2014-and-tribunal-procedure-upper-tribunal-rules-200
Tribunal bosses have put their foot down on fast track asylum appeals, refusing the government’s push for an accelerated process for appellants in immigration detention. The Tribunal Procedure Committee said that it would not be re-introducing a system like the Detained Fast Track that the courts found to be unlawful back in 2015. It pointed out that any such system would need so many safeguards to maintain some semblance of due process that it wouldn’t speed things up anyway.
The committee’s decision, published recently, is a victory for the seven expert organisations that responded to its consultation. All had opposed the return of Detained Fast Track.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Registration as a British citizen: children of British parents: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-of-british-parents-nationality-policy-guidance?utm_source=6cd52f07-9428-40a5-870a-a1890ae4ff79&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Guidance on applications for registration as a British citizen from children of British parents.
>>> Introducing eSolo: Supporting evidence self-upload: https://pos.tlscontact.com/abv_en/useful-information?utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=a3f2801520-Daily+forum+updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-a3f2801520-116194677&mc_cid=a3f2801520&mc_eid=1af5cd4d48
"Customers applying for a UK visa will benefit from digital improvements to the UK visa application process. You will be able to self-upload your supporting evidence before attending your appointment at the Visa Application Centre (via Desktop or Mobile app).
This new process allows customers to prepare their set of supporting evidence in advance. This development is made available to customers using both our Standard and Priority Visa services.
If you wish to be assisted by our staff for the submission of your supporting evidence on the date of your visit to our Visa Application centre, you will have to select a specific appointment for an additional fee of 20 GBP (+VAT)."
>>> UKVI Correspondence: National Savings Premium Bonds can be accepted as cash savings in an Appendix FM application
From the Home Office:
"We...can confirm that income in premium bonds can be accepted as evidence of cash savings as they can be obtained within a very short period. The account is deemed as an investment account and provided that the applicant can meet all the other requirements, like statements to confirm that the savings have been held for at least 6 months"
>>> Home Office tries to tackle eGates problem that makes short-term study illegal
Short-term students are supposed to see an immigration officer
Under Part 3 of the Immigration Rules, non-visa nationals — that is, citizens of any country that is not on the visa national list at Appendix 2 of the Rules here, including all those mentioned above — can come to the UK for short-term study (‘STS’) of up to six months without getting a visa in advance. Those entering under this route also do not need to be sponsored under Tier 4 of the Points Based System.
Instead, they can get immigration permission to study a short course directly from the Border Force officer on arrival in the UK. This is in the form of a stamp placed into the passport confirming that the student has the right to study under the STS route. (Anyone from a country on the visa national list and those planning to study English language for up to 11 months must apply for prior entry clearance.)
Unfortunately the introduction of eGates has meant that some students who should have seen a Border Force officer and been entered into the UK under the STS route have instead come in through an eGate. This means that they are in the UK as a visitor, not a student.
This is important because under Appendix V of the Immigration Rules, anyone who is in the UK as a visitor can only study in the UK for up to 30 days during their visit providing study is not the main purpose for their visit (unless they are a school child on an educational visit or exchange).
>>> Supreme Court finds UK breached residence rights of hundreds of thousands of EU citizens: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0008.html
The Supreme Court has today dismissed the Home Office appeal in the case of Gubeladze [2019] UKSC 31. The judgment affects hundreds of thousands of EU citizens from the so-called Accession Eight (or “A8”) countries that joined the EU in 2004 and means that the United Kingdom unlawfully imposed a registration system, known as the Worker Registration Scheme, on these citizens between 2009 and 2011.
The issue in this case was not whether it was lawful to impose transitional arrangements at all but whether the particular transitional arrangements that were imposed were lawful. Mrs Gubeladze argued that the requirements of the Worker Registration Scheme were disproportionate in EU law, imposing too heavy a burden on EU citizens and on employers for very little purpose.
The scheme created a criminal offence for employers, the cost for workers was £90 and evidence suggested that non-compliance by relevant workers, which was likely accidental in almost all cases, was as high as 33%. Non-compliance would affect entitlement to claim benefits, acquisition of permanent residence and, ultimately, eligibility for British citizenship.
Implications of the judgment in practice
The judgment means that the extension of the Worker Registration Scheme between 2009 and 2011 was unlawful. In turn, this suggests several things:
- All those A8 EU citizens who paid the £90 fee to register between 2009 and 2011 should in theory be refunded their payments. A fee needed to be paid for every job, so a person moving between jobs may have had to make several payments.
- EU citizens who sought permanent residence on the basis of five years’ lawful residence and were refused because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 were wrongly refused permanent residence.
- EU citizens who were refused British citizenship for not meeting either the residence or good character requirements because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 should ask for their decisions to be reconsidered.
- Any retirees denied benefits and permanent residence because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011, like Mrs Gubeladze herself, should ask that these decisions be reconsidered and seek legal advice on whether they are eligible for back payments.
- Anyone convicted of the criminal offences associated with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 should consider getting legal advice to see if their conviction might be overturned.
Over 100,000 people applied to the WRS in 2009 alone, government figures show.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Rights and status of frontier workers in the UK after Brexit: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-and-status-of-frontier-workers-in-the-uk-after-brexit/right-to-work-in-the-uk-frontier-workers--2
>>> UKVI Guidance Collection: DNA evidence in immigration applications: review information: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/dna-evidence-in-immigration-applications-review-information?utm_source=bdacc748-cd77-4588-89be-d6916e8219e6&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Information for applicants who may have been asked to provide DNA evidence to support their immigration application.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Short-term students: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/short-term-students?utm_source=2ebb8b5f-cab7-4a3c-a6c8-939647ee3bf8&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Guidance on how short-term student applications for entry clearance or leave to enter are considered.
>>> Upper Tribunal has power to set aside grant of judicial review permission: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1014.html
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Upper Tribunal has the same power as the High Court to set aside a decision to grant permission for judicial review. In R (Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1014, the Upper Tribunal set aside an earlier grant of permission because the Home Office had been prevented from attending the permission hearing due to a misunderstanding.
>>> Court of Appeal quashes clearly unfounded certificate in Albanian asylum claim: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/951.html
This week the Court of Appeal quashed the certification of an Albanian asylum claim as “clearly unfounded”. In SP (Albania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 951, the court found that the Home Office had not properly investigated the appellant’s account of being persecuted before deciding to certify the claim under section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, contrary to its own policy on certification.
The court also gave helpful guidance on issuing “clearly unfounded” certificates, stating that the Home Office cannot certify asylum claims without first giving proper attention to all salient features of the case. Certificates under section 94(2) should only be given if, after assessing all the facts and the evidence provided, it’s clear that the claim is so clearly without substance that it is “bound to fail”, as was held in ZL & VL v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 25.
>>> Indefinite leave to remain in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/indefinite-leave-to-remain-in-the-uk?utm_source=f2e4a451-46a8-4722-8734-ed059b41279b&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
This guidance provides information about what it means to have indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK, also known as settlement.
>>> MAC to advise on future salary thresholds: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-asks-independent-migration-experts-to-advise-on-future-salary-thresholds?utm_source=b6a36e08-6f58-400d-b358-780343769d33&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
From the Government's announcement:
"The Home Secretary Sajid Javid has today (Monday 24 June) asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review and advise on salary thresholds for the future immigration system, which will start to take effect from 2021.
The Migration Advisory Committee previously recommended that the government should retain the existing minimum salary thresholds in the future immigration system, which includes paying experienced workers at least £30,000, and new entrants (including recent graduates) at least £20,800.
The Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to consider how future salary thresholds should be calculated, the levels of salary thresholds, whether there is a case for regional salary thresholds for different parts of the UK, and whether there should be exceptions to salary thresholds, for example because they’ve newly started the occupation or because they work in an occupation in shortage.
After publishing plans for the new skills-based immigration system in December 2018, the government has embarked on a year-long engagement programme with business and employers up and down the UK.
In the white paper, the government said it would engage with businesses and employers on the salary threshold. Since then, the Home Office has held over 100 events across the UK, engaging 1,500 stakeholders representing businesses and employers. It has also set up five advisory groups to deepen engagement between government and industry.
The new immigration system will mark the end of free movement and introduce a new route for skilled workers which favours experience and talent over nationality.
It already includes measures designed to support business, such as:
-removing the cap on skilled worker numbers
- speeding up processing times for work visas
- scrapping resident labour market tests
- widening the skills thresholds so that anyone with the equivalent of A levels can apply under the new skilled workers route
To help organisations adjust to the new system, as a transitional measure, there will be a temporary work route allowing workers from some countries to come for a year and work, open to all skill levels.
The Migration Advisory Committee is expected to report back by January 2020 when the government will consider all the evidence before finalising plans. The new immigration system will be phased in from 2021.
>>> Extended family members denied an appeal can go ahead and lodge one: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/194.html
Banger (EEA: EFM – Right of Appeal) [2019] UKUT 194 (IAC) has finally reached the end of the road. This is the case that went up to the Court of Justice of the European Union on, essentially, two issues:
- Does the Surinder Singh route apply to durable parters? and
- Are extended family members entitled to a full appeal on the merits, rather than a judicial review on an error of law?
The CJEU said “yes” to both, as we reported at the time: Court of Justice finds Surinder Singh applies to extended family members.
The case has now returned to the Upper Tribunal for a final decision, some six years after Ms Banger was first refused a residence card. Those who benefit from this decision should spare a thought for the stress, inconvenience and cost to which the lead litigant has been exposed over these years and the hard work put in by her legal team.
The Home Office had already agreed to issue a residence card to Ms Banger (although failed to actually issue it). The appeal nevertheless proceeded at Ms Banger’s request.
There is a tranche of extended family members who have been denied a proper statutory right of appeal. After the disastrously wrong Sala case, extended family members were wrongly denied a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Once Sala was overturned, those affected could go ahead and lodge an appeal and request an extension of time.
In the meantime, though, the Home Office had brought into effect the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which denied the same right of appeal on a statutory basis. An amendment conferring a right of appeal under the 2016 regulations was eventually laid in response to the CJEU Banger judgment. This right of appeal was not retrospective, though, meaning that there were an unknown number of people who received decisions under the 2016 regulations before the amendment took effect who had no statutory right of appeal.
The tribunal says those affected can do one of two things:
- Ask the Home Office for a new decision and then appeal that, or
- Just get on with it and lodge an appeal, making sure an extension of time is requested"
The second option is quicker and more convenient and is available because of the direct effect of EU law and the terms of the CJEU Banger judgment.
>>> Work visa refusal based on “genuine vacancy” rule declared irrational: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1019.html
Where a company sponsors a worker from overseas to fill a vacancy in the UK they must only do so if that vacancy is “genuine”.
The case of R (Suny) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1019 arose from a disagreement between a sponsored worker and the Home Office about the genuineness of a vacancy that a sponsoring company was attempting to fill.
Unusually in this case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the visa applicant that the Secretary of State had crossed the “notoriously high” irrationality threshold in deciding that no genuine vacancy existed.
>>> Detention in a young offender institution can nullify enhanced protection against deportation: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1052.html
Detention in a young offender institution has much the same impact on an EU citizen’s enhanced protection against deportation as imprisonment in an adult jail, the Court of Appeal has held. The case is Secretary of State for the Home Department v Viscu [2019] EWCA Civ 1052.
>>> ECB05: where to apply for the UK Visa: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/where-to-apply-ecb05
1. Applications for short-term visas, EEA family permits, Tier 5 and Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent)
You can make applications for a visit visa, a short-term study visa, an EEA family permit, Tier 5 or Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) entry clearance in any visa application centre, British diplomatic mission or consular post overseas where entry clearance applications are accepted.
You should be present legally in the country or territory you’re applying from.
2. Applications for other entry clearance
Applications for other types of entry clearance should be made in the country in which you are living.
>>> Rules and options for extending the UK Visitor visas
Extension of stay as a visitor
It is possible to extend stay as a visitor only in very limited circumstances under the rules. In exceptional circumstances and application outside the rules might be contemplated, however.
An extension is explicitly ruled out for a PPE visitor or transit visitor. Other types of visitor can potentially apply to extend their stay if they meet the following criteria:
An application for an extension of stay as a visitor must satisfy the decision maker that they continue to meet all the suitability and eligibility requirements for a visit visa.
The applicant must not be in the UK in breach of immigration laws, except for any period of overstaying of 28 days or less which will be discounted.
If the applicant is applying for an extension of stay as a visitor for the purpose of receiving private medical treatment they must also satisfy the decision maker they:
(a) have met the costs of any medical treatment received so far; and
(b) provide a letter from a registered medical practitioner, at a private practice or NHS hospital, who holds an NHS consultant post or who appears in the Specialist Register of the General Medical Council, detailing the medical condition requiring further treatment.
The following extensions of stay are permissible:
A standard visitor or a visitor for marriage or civil partnership who was granted a visit visa or leave to enter for less than 6 months may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor so that the total period they can remain the UK (including both the original grant and the extension of stay) does not exceed 6 months.
A standard visitor who is in the UK for private medical treatment may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor for a further 6 months, provided this is for private medical treatment.
Standard visitor who is an academic on sabbatical leave and is in the UK undertaking their own research, or the spouse, partner or child accompanying such an academic, can be granted an extension of stay as a visitor so that the total period they can remain in the UK (including both the original grant and the extension of stay) does not exceed 12 months.
A standard visitor may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor for up to 6 months in order to resit the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) Test, provided they meet the requirements at Appendix 3, paragraph 22(b)(i) of the main Immigration Rules.
A standard visitor who is successful in the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board Test may be granted an extension of stay as a visitor to undertake a clinical attachment, provided they meet the requirements of Appendix 3, paragraph 22(a) so that the total period they can remain in the UK (including both the original grant and the extension of stay) does not exceed 18 months.
There is no provision in the rules for extensions of stay beyond these limits.
>>> Some visitors in the UK can work, did you know ? Enter the Permitted Paid Engagement (PPE) visitors
PPE visitors are allowed to do any of the activities listed in Visitor Appendix 3 that a standard visitor can do, but they must also meet the additional requirements of Part V6:
"An applicant must intend to do one (or more) of the permitted paid engagements set out in Appendix 4 to these Rules, which must:
(a) be arranged before the applicant travels to the UK; and
(b) be declared as part of the application for a visit visa or leave to enter; and
(c) be evidenced by a formal invitation, as required by Appendix 4; and
(d) relate to the applicant’s area of expertise and occupation overseas".
Visitors Appendix 4 then sets out what is meant by a “permitted paid engagement” for the purpose of a visit visa:
"(a) an academic who is highly qualified within his or her field of expertise
may examine students and/or participate in or chair selection panels, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution or a UK based research or arts organisation as part of that institution or organisation’s quality assurance processes.
(b) An expert may give lectures in their subject area, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution; or a UK based research or arts organisation provided this does not amount to filling a teaching position for the host organisation.
(c) An overseas designated pilot examiner may assess UK based pilots to ensure they meet the national aviation regulatory requirements of other countries, if they have been invited by an approved training organisation based in the UK that is regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for that purpose.
(d) A qualified lawyer may provide advocacy for a court or tribunal hearing, arbitration or other form of dispute resolution for legal proceedings within the UK, if they have been invited by a client.
(e) A professional artist, entertainer, musician or sports person may carry out an activity directly relating to their profession, if they have been invited by a creative (arts or entertainment) or sports organisation, agent or broadcaster based in the UK"
>>> Steps on how to prepare a good Entry Clearance application for a Visitor visa
Because everyone’s situation is different it is hard to give general guidance but there are some simple hints and tips that can be followed to help reduce the chances of an unnecessary refusal:
- Check the form carefully and get someone else to check it. Entry Clearance Officers can be very unforgiving of errors and omissions.
- Make sure all the questions are answered.
- Answer every question carefully and truthfully. Refusals on the basis of suspected deception can be easy to trigger through a thoughtless answer and can be hard to overturn.
- Check the immigration history carefully and specifically about previous refusals for or removal from any country (not just the UK).
- Assume that the application will be considered by a person who will assume everyone is lying unless you can prove otherwise with independent and verifiable evidence. For example, if you do not include with the application three months of continuous bank statements showing a positive balance and at least some savings then it is highly likely the application will be refused on maintenance and accommodation grounds and also intention to return grounds.
- If the application is to be decided by a high refusal rate application centre, go to extra effort to obtain high quality evidence to support the application that goes beyond the evidence asked for on the application form.
- Use a covering letter to explain in more detail the reasons for the visit, plans for the visit, circumstances at home (finances, family ties, employment) and what documents have been included in the application. A numbered list of documents is very useful, particularly if you write corresponding numbers on the documents themselves, so that your cover letter is effectively a contents page for the application. The easier the Entry Clearance Officer finds it to understand the application and its circumstances, the more likely the application will be successful
Or, best of all the words, ask the Legal Centre to check your application for your peace of mind via this link: https://legalcentre.org/Immigration-Application-Verification-Service.html
>>> Caution ! Even a day of overstaing may ruin your Settlement under the 10 year long residence Rule, as the Court of Appeal says: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1070.html
Migrants who have spent ten years in the UK with continuous and lawful leave can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
Can leave be “continuous” if it involved short gaps between lawful periods of leave where an applicant has overstayed? This was the question addressed by the Court of Appeal in R (Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1070.
Apparently, the Court of Appeal said "Yes". You have been warned...
>>> Caution about the applications with the children who turn 18 AFTER the application was submitted
“If a child applied to come to the UK at the age of, for example, 17, was refused and appealed, but at the date of the appeal hearing the child turns 18, then the Section 85(4) comes into play and therefore the child cannot meet the rules under para 297(ii)”
Just a warning that if it comes to an appeal the Home Office may be entitled to treat the Appellant as over 18.
In other words, if an appellant will have turned 18 by the time of the appeal, although the appellant may meet the relevant requirement by that time, the conditions at the time of the appeal will be that the appellant is over 18 and hence the appeal cannot be allowed as the appellant would not meet the rules at that time, even though the Appellant was under 18 at the date of application.
In this case the argument in the court could be on the so-called proportionality basis, for example, Kugathas v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 31.
Therefore, it is paramount to prepare the Entry Clearance etc application as beast as possible as otherwise the child, who turns 18 at the date of the hearing, may not succeed with the appeal.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Common Travel Area guidance updated: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjR6YOq64vjAhUNO8AKHbLoDuIQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F782299%2Fcommon-travel-area-v3.0.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0hogIbVrB16osPWBpoH81x
>>> Change to type of visa vignette used for the UK Visit visas - now the visas will be red in colour
From the Home Office:
"We wanted to alert you to an imminent change in the type of vignette (visa sticker) used for Visit visas.
Visit visas are, as you know, currently printed on CAT-C (green) vignettes. Starting on 01 July they will be printed on CAT-D (red). Example images can be seen in attachment. This change does not affect your clients or customers in general, in any way. Existing Visit visas printed on green vignettes will still be good for travel for the duration of validity."
>>> The BBC's film about "Who Should Get to Stay in the UK?" provides a detailed outlook at the migrants' journey through different UK immigration routes. Did you think that the immigration was easy ? Have a look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005x77
>>> Understaffed immigration inspectorate struggles to hold Home Office to account: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/icibi-annual-report-2018-to-2019
Staff shortages mean that the immigration inspector’s office is struggling to effectively scrutinise the work of the Home Office, according to the organisation’s annual report. There are supposed to be 25 inspectors working under chief David Bolt, but by the end of March 2019 there were just 11 in post.
The inspectorate operated at two-thirds strength across the whole of last year and “is likely to be significantly under strength for at least the first half of 2019-20”, Bolt said.
The staffing troubles seem to be caused by high turnover compounded by difficulty recruiting civil servants — inspectors have traditionally come from the Home Office itself — as well as security clearance holding up external recruitment. The organisation managed only seven published reports in 2018/19 — compared to 20 the previous year.
>>> Trust Pilot's option on the Home Office operation of the visa services outside of the UK...Not for the light hearted: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/vfsglobal.com?utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=e74d113a36-Daily+forum+updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-e74d113a36-116194677&mc_cid=e74d113a36&mc_eid=1af5cd4d48
>>> Sopra Steria to start charging for documents scanning during the biometric appointments
From the Home Office:
"Dear colleague,
We are writing to update you on UK Visas and Immigration’s (UKVI) front end services for UK customers. We’d like to inform you of Sopra Steria’s plans to introduce assisted scanning charges at their core service points.
As you will already be aware, the UK Visa and Citizenship Application Service (UKVCAS) run by Sopra Steria, was launched in November 2018. UKVCAS currently provides six core service points, where free appointments are available to customers during core hours (10:00-16:00), with payable slots available outside of these hours. Demand is currently very high for free appointments and we appreciate your patience whilst we work closely with Sopra Steria to ensure that the capacity for free appointments is maximised.
In additional to the six core sites, there are 50 enhanced service points that customers can use for a fee, plus a premium lounge offering superior comfort and privacy.
Since the launch of UKVCAS, customers visiting a core service point have been able to conveniently self-upload supporting documentation before they visit the service point. They have also had access to the assisted scanning service offered by Sopra Steria free of charge.
From 22 July, customers who book an appointment at one of the 6 core sites who do not wish to use the self-upload function may utilise the assisted scanning service but at a cost of £45. This is a flat rate, regardless of the number of documents to be scanned and must be paid before the customer attends their appointment at the core service point. The self-upload option remains free to customers and recent changes to this service will allow customers to preview their documents before uploading to their account. The fee for document scanning is in addition to the appointment booking charge if a customer choses an out of hours appointment.
If a customer chooses not to self-upload their supporting evidence ahead of the visit to a core service point, the £45 charge must be paid before they attend their appointment. If a customer has not made a payment prior to their appointment they risk being turned away and having to rebook their appointment.
The premium lounge and enhanced service points continue to offer document scanning during the appointment as part of the overall service. This £45 fee is only for those wishing to use the assisted scanning service at one of the 6 core sites.
For any further information or if you have any questions, please contact Sopra Steria directly. In the meantime, we hope this clarifies Sopra Steria's plans to introduce assisted scanning charges at their core service points.
Regards,
UK Visas and Immigration"
>>> Home Office ordered to bring Ugandan asylum seeker back to the UK five years after removal: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/1616.html
The High Court has ordered the Home Office to return an asylum seeker to the UK from Uganda because her 2013 asylum appeal hearing was unfair. PN v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1616 (Admin) is the latest in a series of cases about the consequences of the Court of Appeal finding that the Detained Fast Track appeal system was unlawful because it created a risk of systemic unfairness. This is the first time that the Home Office has been ordered to return an asylum seeker to the UK because of an unfair appeal.
>>> Government to drop 45-day time limit on support for trafficking victims
The government has promised to abandon the strict 45-day time limit on help for victims of human trafficking following a judicial review challenge. The litigation, organised by Duncan Lewis, has forced the Home Office to concede that the 45-day policy is incompatible with the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking convention and must be replaced with a “needs-based” system.
Victims of human trafficking are entitled to £65 per week, accommodation at a safe house and a support worker. Last April, the High Court had found that there was a “real risk of irreparable harm to a significant number of vulnerable victims of slavery and trafficking if their support were to end after 45 days”. Mr Justice Julian Knowles ordered that support for victims carry on for longer, pending a full judicial review hearing. That hearing was due to take place in a few days’ time.
>>> IHS overpayment refunds link: https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/refunds.
Use the link to request the (due) refunds for the IHS overpayments
>>> Interesting query re: Appendix FM and applications for children of one settled parent.
It was noted that the rules do not allow for switching from one category to another. Rules say that a child can apply in the UK to switch to another category to be the dependant of a parent with settled status and parent with source of settled status dependant only if that parent had been granted leave to remain and not leave to enter. The UK BA Policy Department was contacted, and they said it is possible even if the rules are somehow drafted in a way which implies you cannot. The relevant Rules need to be changed ASAP, and this brings the (never ending) confusion.
>>> ILR for the children under the age of 21 is "automatic" under the Appendix EU: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-eu
Minor applicants (up to 21 years of age) are linked to their parents’ application and given the same status as the parent, regardless of the time lived in the UK.
Namely:
Eligibility for ILR
Paragraph 7
7. (a) The applicant is a child under the age of 21 years of a relevant EEA citizen, or of their spouse or civil partner, and either:
(i) The marriage was contracted or the civil partnership was formed before the specified date; or
(ii) The person who is now their spouse or civil partner was the durable partner of the relevant EEA citizen before the specified date (the definition of durable partner in Annex 1 being met before that date rather than at the date of application) and the partnership remained durable at the specified date; and
(b) The relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, their spouse or civil partner):
(i) Has been or is being granted indefinite leave to enter or remain under this Appendix (or under its equivalent in the Islands); or
(ii) (In the case of a person who is an Irish citizen as a matter of Irish law and who has not made a valid application under this Appendix) would be granted that leave if they made such an application
>>> Sopra Steria terminates controversial immigration advice service after conflict of interest complaints
The outsourcing giant in charge of processing visa applications made in the UK has stopped offering legal advice on applications following an outcry from immigration lawyers.
UK Visa and Citizenship Application Services, operated on behalf of the Home Office by French firm Sopra Steria, had been touting a legal advice service to visa applicants. The firm recommended, World Migration Services, is owned by a company called BLS International — itself involved in visa processing as a subcontractor for Sopra Steria.
The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) complained that the arrangement was a potential conflict of interest, and risked giving migrants the impression that their visa application would be treated more favourably if they took advice on it from a firm connected to the application process.
The World Migration Services office, at 20 Mark Lane in the City of London, was actually on the same site as a visa application centre.
ILPA has now reported that Sopra Steria has terminated its relationship with BLS International. The UK Visa and Citizenship Application Services website no longer carries BLS branding or offers immigration advice.
In February 2019, ILPA wrote to a senior official at UK Visas and Immigration to highlight “apparent bias and perceived lack of independence”. The letter complained that
"Given that BLS International and Sopra Steria advertise themselves as ‘official partners’ of UKVI, replete with UKVI branding, a reasonable applicant would be under the impression that the decision-maker may behave favourably towards applications by those supported by WMS, and by implication less favourably than this towards those supported by all competing firms. ILPA submits that this is contrary to well-established public law principles: putting the point at its highest, this arrangement risks bias or the impression of bias on the part of Home Office decision-makers; at the very least, the Home Office has not taken into account the possibility that apparent bias may be engaged here.
This was followed up in May. The second letter highlighted “serious concerns regarding Sopra Steria/BLS International staff behaviour”. It also noted that “BLS International are ‘cold calling’ universities to offer immigration advice through WMS”.
An ILPA circular to members today says that Sopra Steria is “no longer subcontracting immigration services to BLS International… this means that there should no longer be advertisements for BLS International or World Migration Services on the UKVI ‘customer journey'”.
Asked for comment, Sopra Steria confirmed that it had taken over the running of the Premium Lounge visa application centre formerly at 20 Mark Lane from BLS International. It added that this was “just one of 57 service points located around the UK. All affected customers have been contacted and Premium Lounge services have continued with minimal impact to the service quality. All impacted staff have been consulted”.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Applying for a UK visa: approved English language tests: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-applying-for-uk-visa-approved-english-language-tests?utm_source=ee253ed0-ebd1-48d0-96af-b42d574e09a0&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
List of tests and test centres approved by UK Visas and Immigration to show that applicants have the required level of English for their visa.
Change made - Updated test centre details
>>> Why some employers are not abe to check the migrant's right to work in the UK : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-work-checks-employers-guide ?
An employer’s guide to right to work checks: 28 January 2019
"Outstanding applications, appeals and administrative reviews
If you request verification from the Employer Checking Service because the employee or potential employee has an outstanding application with us or appeal or administrative review against a Home Office decision, you should wait at least 14 days after the application, appeal or administrative review has been delivered or posted to us or the court, before requesting a verification check. This is because it takes this amount of time for most applications, appeals or administrative reviews to be registered with the Home Office.
In order to make the verification request with the Employer Checking Service, you must obtain confirmation from your employee or potential employee of when the application, appeal or administrative review was made to the Home Office. This information must be included in the request form.
The Employer Checking Service aims to provide a response within 5 working days of receiving a valid request. It is your responsibility to inform the person you intend to employ, or continue employing, that you are carrying out this check on them, to complete the verification request correctly and to make the request at least 14 days after the date of the application, appeal or administrative review was delivered or posted."
>>> UKVI Guidance: Employer sponsorship: restricted certificate allocations: http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resource/35584/ukvi-guidance-employer-sponsorship-restricted-certificate-allocations-8-july-2019
A list of restricted certificates allocated each month for employer sponsorship in Tier 2 (General).
Added figures for April, May and June 2019.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Returns preparation: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/returns-preparation?utm_source=39dd774b-2f1f-458e-896d-b52886cc1d85&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Guidance on arranging removals for officers dealing with immigration enforcement matters within the UK.
Guidance on ‘suspension of enforced removal window’ updated.
>>> Stop denying citizenship to British-born kids, government told: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/british-nationality-act-1981-remedial-order-2-report-published-17-19/
Parliament’s human rights committee has hit out at the controversial “good character” test in child citizenship applications, saying that it is “inappropriate” to disqualify British-born youngsters from citizenship because of petty misdemeanors.
In a report published today, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says that “an unduly heavy-handed approach to the good character requirement is depriving children who have lived in the UK all of their lives from their right to British citizenship”.
The committee was ostensibly reviewing a draft government Order to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to eliminate historic gender discrimination. It concluded that the Order would address human rights problems identified in the Supreme Court cases of Johnson and Bangs, and recommended that it be approved by Parliament.
But the committee also went off-piste with a look at wider problems in nationality law, taking particular exception to the good character requirement being applied to children registering for British citizenship.
>>> Tribunal blows hole in mandatory application process for EU law residence documents - Absence of the ex-spouse's EU ID document: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/195.html
In 2016 the Home Office embarked on an attempt to homogenise the application processes for immigration applications made under EU law and those made under UK law. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed in Rehman (EEA Regulations 2016 – specified evidence) [2019] UKUT 195 (IAC) that there are limits to how prescriptive the Home Office can be when it comes to the former, also known as EEA applications.
The decision means that EU citizens or their family members who are turned down for residence documents due to Home Office inflexibility on the exact paperwork required should have a good chance on appeal. In practice, it will still be better to comply with what officials think the law is where possible.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Rehman
Residence card application rejected as invalid
In Rehman the Home Office had rejected a residence card application from a Pakistani man who sought to rely on a “retained right of residence” following divorce from his EU citizen spouse. It was accepted that all of the requirements for a retained right of residence were met — but the ex-wife’s passport had not been included.
It can be particularly difficult to obtain this in retained right of residence cases as the applicant has, by definition, divorced the person who had effectively been sponsoring them. Sometimes the separation is amicable and the former spouse is happy to help by providing documents. Sometime they are not.
As the passport had not been provided with Mr Rehman’s application, the Home Office rejected it with reference to regulation 21. An appeal was lodged and dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal. Mr Rehman appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Insistence on particular documents not allowed by EU law
The Upper Tribunal began by recognising that EU law does allow administrative procedures to be put in place to ensure consistency. But:
…the “supporting documents required” cannot go beyond the requirements of the Directive or what is strictly necessary to establish the relevant right of residence under European Union law… provisions introduced for administrative convenience must not go beyond what is required to establish a right of residence.
In Mr Rehman’s case, this is what had happened. The Home Office had accepted that the requirements for a retained right of residence had been met. The only reason they rejected the application was due to a failure to provide a particular document (the passport). Requiring this document went beyond what was needed to establish a right of residence. It is not required by EU law, which takes priority over the 2016 Regulations:
The provisions contained in regulations 21 and 42 must be interpreted to conform with European Union law. If the provision does not conform with European Union law on the facts of a case, it must be read to conform. In some cases, this might involve ignoring the requirement for specified evidence altogether if a document is not in fact required to establish a right of residence.
As such, Mr Rehman’s appeal was allowed. He met the requirements and it did not matter that he had not provided his former partner’s passport.
This will not necessarily apply in every case. It was the blanket nature of the rule which the Upper Tribunal objected to. Sometimes there could be justification for requiring submission of the EEA national’s passport. For instance the Tribunal recognises that:
If there was any doubt that the appellant had been married to an EEA national as claimed the respondent could lawfully require the production of his former wife’s passport, but this was not an issue in this case. The respondent accepted that the appellant was married to an EEA national when he issued the previous residence card. Indeed, the respondent accepted that the appellant met the requirements of regulation 10(5).
So it seems we are back to the pre-2016 Regulations position of preferring substance over form, at least in theory.
What does this mean in practice?
So should the applicants all start disregarding the Home Office’s EEA application procedures, ignoring the forms and the mandatory specified documents? No.
In practice it will be much easier to comply. Notwithstanding the decision in Rehman, the Home Office is likely to carry on as if nothing has changed.
It is much easier to implement a strict box-ticking exercise which can be carried out by administrative staff at an early stage of the application process, rather than engage in an overall assessment of the case before deciding whether to accept an application as valid.
If an application is rejected solely because a particular document is missing, it is likely that an appeal would be successful providing that the requirements for a residence card can be met. The decision in Rehman therefore provides a fall back for anyone who is not able to provide the documents required under the EEA Regulations.
However for the majority of applicants it will be quicker and easier to avoid the need for an appeal to the tribunal by following the Home Office’s preferred application process and providing the documents requested by the Regulations, forms, and guidance.
The official headnote
The principles outlined in Barnett and Others (EEA Regulations; rights and documentation) [2012] UKUT 00142 are equally applicable to The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. Section 1 of Schedule 1 to these regulations provides that the sole ground of appeal is that the decision breaches the appellant’s rights under the EU Treaties in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom. The provisions contained in regulations 21 and 42 must be interpreted in the light of European Union law. In some cases, this might involve ignoring the requirement for specified evidence altogether if a document is not in fact required to establish a right of residence.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Applying for a UK visa: approved English language tests: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-applying-for-uk-visa-approved-english-language-tests?utm_source=6e122125-72b3-4887-aaed-8ff2022c01cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
List of tests and test centres approved by UK Visas and Immigration to show that applicants have the required level of English for their visa.
Updated list of approved tests and providers for July 2019.
>>> The new Rules on submitting the Settlement applications outside of the UK via the TLScontact: http://legalcentre.org/files/TLS-UK-SCANNING-HUB-COMMS.pdf
From the UK Visas and Immigration:
“Our commercial partner, TLScontact have introduced an added value service which offers settlement visa customers (overseas) applying in a TLScontact location and their sponsors the option to submit supporting documents at a scanning location in the UK. It also advises of the changes to PO Box 3468.”
>>> New Upper Tribunal guidance on “cross appeals” and jurisdiction in EEA deportation cases: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/216.html
In Smith (appealable decisions; PTA requirements; anonymity : Belgium) [2019] UKUT 216 (IAC), President Lane and Upper Tribunal Judges Gill and Finch provide important guidance on jurisdiction in EEA deportation and Article 8 appeals and the correct procedure for raising “cross appeals” in the Upper Tribunal.
>>>Tough approach on admitting new evidence before the Upper Tribunal: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1162.html
The Court of Appeal has taken a restrictive approach to the admission of new evidence before the Upper Tribunal that was not available before the First-tier Tribunal. The case is Kabir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1162,
In Kabir, the First-tier Tribunal had refused an application made for an adjournment to obtain further evidence. Mr Kabir, having got his hands on that further evidence, then launched an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that the First-tier Tribunal should have granted an adjournment, but in any case that the Upper Tribunal should reconsider the decision using the fresh evidence. The Upper Tribunal refused.
>>> MPs publish damning indictment of UK visa process for African visitors: http://www.royalafricansociety.org/analysis/home-office-visa-service-discriminating-against-africans
A cross-party group of MPs has published a highly critical report on the Home Office’s treatment of visit visa applicants from Africa. It forms part of an ongoing inquiry into the high level of visa refusals for Africans seeking to visit the UK for professional or business reasons.
The report has been issued jointly by three All Party Parliamentary Groups: the APPG for Africa; the APPG for Diaspora, Development and Migration; and the APPG for Malawi.
The following 4 core issues have been identified:
1. Practical and logistical barriers
2. Inconsistent and/or careless decision-making
3. Perceived lack of procedural fairness
4. Financial discrimination in decision-making
Helpful and just interesting updates on the UK and EEA immigration law from the Legal Centre, who can help you with any immigration issue. www.legalcentre.org Mob/WhatsApp/Viber: +44(0)7791145923, Office: +44(0)3300010342
>>> What does “unduly harsh” mean in deportation cases: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1213.html
In the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v PG (Jamaica) [2019] EWCA Civ 1213 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “unduly harsh” in deportation cases, overturning the decisions of both of the tribunals that had previously heard the appeal.
>>> Can a PBS Dependent obtain a leave on the basis of Domestic Violence ?
The answer is, “may be”. See the case https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/IA347652015.html
>>> UKVI refuse to disclose numbers of Innovator and Start-up visas granted after FOIA request :
“Information Requested:
• Whether the Secretary of State has granted entry clearance or leave to enter/remain in respect of an application under Part 6 of Appendix W in respect of the Innovator category, and if so, which were the endorsing bodies concerned, and in which industry sectors did the innovator(s) apply.
Home Office’s Response:
I can confirm that the Home Office holds some of the information that you have requested. However, after careful consideration we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information can be withheld if it is intended for future publication.
Section 22 of the Act is a qualified exemption and requires consideration of the”
That means that the amount of the approved application has either been “zero” or extremely low, thus defeating the point of the programmes.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Sponsor a Tier 2 or 5 worker: guidance for employers updated to include addendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sponsor-a-tier-2-or-5-worker-guidance-for-employers
Now the Guidance is ..308 pages ! The Home Office now almost formerly makes the Employers to instruct the reputable and experienced lawyers like the Legal Centre (www.legalcentre.org) to work through hundreds of pages of various Guidance Notes and endless Addendums…
>>> Tier 2 Immigration Skills surcharge – who is exempt : https://www.gov.uk/uk-visa-sponsorship-employers/immigration-skills-charge ?
According to the Home Office, the following categories of migrants are exempts from paying the skills surcharge:
“When you do not need to pay
You will not pay the immigration skills charge if the worker you’re sponsoring:
• has a Tier 4 (Student) visa and is switching to a Tier 2 (General) visa
• has a Tier 2 (Intra-company Transfer) Graduate Trainee visa
• will do a job with a PhD-level standard occupational classification (SOC) code
You will not need to pay the charge for any of the worker’s dependants, for example their partner or child.”
>>> The Home Office has indicated again that they may be introducing a Premium Service in relation to the Nationality (AN, MN1 etc) applications.
>>> UKVI Guidance: ECAA Turkish employed applications: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ecaa-turkish-employed-applications?utm_source=026738c9-a650-487b-822f-c063fcd79782&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Guidance on how applications are considered from Turkish workers for an extension of stay, after one year with the same employer.
Updated guidance
>>> UKVI Guidance: Turkish ECAA business guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/turkish-ecaa-business-guidance?utm_source=7ac77666-d7d3-44db-bbdf-55bf8bbd48dc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
Business applications under the Turkish EC Association Agreement
Updated guidance
>>> High Court allows Home Office to ignore tribunal bail decision: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/1969.html
The High Court has ruled that the Home Office can ignore a grant of immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal if there is a material change of circumstances before the person is released. R (AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1969 (Admin) is about the familiar situation where someone is granted conditional bail while accommodation is arranged, but during the wait for housing there is an important change in circumstances. Can the Home Office lawfully ignore the tribunal’s decision to grant bail?
Unfortunately, the High Court says that this is exactly what the Home Office is allowed to do.
>>> UKVI update: proposed Regulations amending the 2016 EEA Regulations - Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2019: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1155/contents/made
Citation and commencement
These Regulations may be cited as the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and come into force on 15th August 2019.
>>> Migration Advisory Committee review of the Shortage Occupation List
On 29 May, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published the outcome of its full review of the Shortage Occupation List (SOL). I am very grateful to the MAC for a very thorough and comprehensive piece of work. The MAC recommended a number of changes to the main UK-wide SOL, expanding the list to cover a range of high-skilled occupations, including a number of health and social care, engineering and digital technology occupations.
The Government is happy to accept all of the MAC’s recommendations on the composition of the SOL and the necessary amendments will be made in the Autumn Immigration Rules changes.
The MAC also suggested that, in order to combat the particular challenges faced by some remote communities, the Government should pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas. The Government accepts that this is an idea worth pursuing. Further details will be given in due course.
>>> UKVI Policy Paper: The UK's future skills-based immigration system: advisory group membership: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-future-skills-based-immigration-system-advisory-group-membership?utm_source=1eaa2a4f-3423-4dc8-89a0-8a2743c9e17a&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
>>> Win a deportation appeal? You can still be deported, Court of Appeal holds: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1252.html
If a foreign criminal wins their deportation appeal, can the Home Office try and deport them again, even where there has been no further offending?
In MA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1252, the Court of Appeal considered this question and held that the answer is yes.
>>> UKVI guidance: British citizenship: automatic acquisition guidance updated: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjgmKLcoNDjAhUHV8AKHb4CAhAQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/820363/british-citizenship-automatic-acquisition-v3.0-ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0V9Rt4tISHFBACzMGDjScM
>>> UKVI Collection: Landlords: immigration right to rent checks: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/landlords-immigration-right-to-rent-checks?utm_source=c2e572be-18b1-4a32-a9ca-959cd1f440ce&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
A collection of guidance to help landlords, homeowners and letting agents carry out correct right to rent checks and avoid civil penalties.
>>> UKVI Collection: Family of people settled or coming to settle (modernised guidance): https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-of-people-settled-or-coming-to-settle-modernised-guidance?utm_source=d1309805-a457-439c-9c0b-59638f01d96c&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
This collection brings together the modernized guidance used by UK Visas and Immigration about migrants who are family members of UK residents.
>>> UKVI Guidance: Family life (as a partner or parent): private life and exceptional circumstance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/family-life-as-a-partner-or-parent-private-life-and-exceptional-circumstance?utm_source=329baf9a-6346-4dc4-8912-f6976b79a98c&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
How UK Visas and Immigration staff consider claims on the basis of family life, private life, or exceptional circumstances.
>>> UKVI Guidance: new modernised guidance on dependants of part 5 migrants: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiKp9PjpNLjAhVDY8AKHfYTBr0QFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F820619%2Fdependants-of-part-5-migrants-v4.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0yOETfcB0bQ_L1HR8PZK86
This guidance tells caseworkers how to process applications for entry clearance, leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the child or partner of a migrant with leave to enter or remain under part 5, paragraphs 128 to 193 (excluding 135I to 135K) of the Immigration Rules.