09 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> The Graduate Route will be reviewed by the MAC on the 14th May 2024
Anything is on the cards: the route may be recommended to b abolished, reduced to PhD only etc.
12 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Important changed in relation to the Long Residence Rule: Long residence (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Note the following changes:
“… transitional arrangements preserve the position that continuous residence will be broken if an applicant has been absent from the UK for more than 184 days at any one time or for more than a total of 548 days overall, where that absence started before 11 April 2024. This means that:
• any single absences started before 11 April 2024 must be no longer than 184 days
• a 10-year period completed before 11 April 2024 must not have total absences of more than 548 days - ***** for 10-year periods which extend beyond 11 April 2024, there is no 548-day limit *****
• ***** from 11 April 2024 the applicant must not have been outside the UK for more than 180 days in any 12-month period *****
>>> Naturalization fees go up for the 2nd time in one year: Fees for citizenship applications and the right of abode from 4 October 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
19 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Person with indefinite leave unable to return to the UK for over 15 years after Home Office mistake: Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 372 (17 April 2024) (bailii.org)
The Home Secretary has lost a case where it was argued that a refugee who held indefinite leave to remain in the UK should not be permitted to return to the UK based on his right to a private life. The refugee in question had lost his travel document while outside the UK, tried unsuccessfully to get another one from the British embassy but failed to do so because the Home Office had not kept a record of his grant of indefinite leave.
Remarkably, this was a Cart judicial review (where a decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal can be challenged by judicial review) that had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, indicating a litany of judicial failures at earlier stages. The case is Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 372.
24 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> A man from Belarus: 26 years with no legal status in the UK or the Supreme Court finds no human right to legal status if it’s your own fault you can’t be removed
See R (on the application of AM (Belarus)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) - The Supreme Court
In AM (Belarus) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKSC 13, in a judgment delivered by Lord Sales, the Supreme Court has held that a man living in the United Kingdom for twenty six years with no immigration status was not entitled to status on human rights or other grounds because it was his own fault. He had repeatedly been found by the Home Office and judges to be a national of Belarus but when removed there in 2001 had claimed to the Belarussian authorities not to be a citizen. They refused to accept him and he was therefore returned to the UK. Since then, he had continued to obstruct efforts to redocument him as Belarussian and remove him there.
Normally a person with twenty years of illegal residence can apply for legal status under the immigration rules. This was not open to AM, though, because he had committed several criminal offences and was therefore excluded from succeeding by the suitability criteria that apply to that route. He was therefore left relying on human rights grounds.
In the meantime, AM could not legally work, rent accommodation, access anything other than emergency NHS care, open a bank account or claim benefits other than destitution-level asylum support. He had developed very serious mental health and addiction issues and committed further offences. One was a false identity offence, perhaps rather unsurprisingly in the circumstances. This was described with considerable, arguably insulting, understatement by the Supreme Court as not “an especially enviable life”.
The Upper Tribunal held that AM was entitled to leave to remain on human grounds, his being a genuinely exceptional case. His example was hardly likely to inspire others to emulate him, given how miserable his existence in the UK had become. The Home Office appealed but the Court of Appeal agreed with the Upper Tribunal.
Allowing the Home Office appeal, the Supreme Court disapproved guidance from the Court of Appeal on limbo cases from the earlier case of RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 850.
29 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Upper Tribunal confirms that appellants lost their rights under EU law once sponsor lost his EU citizenship: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nagdev & Anor (Procedural safeguards; expulsion; Chenchooliah) [2024] UKUT 101 (IAC) (15 February 2024) (bailii.org)
Headnote
The decision of the CJEU in Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] EUECJ C-94/18 (10 September 2019); [2020] Imm AR 80 extended the procedural safeguards in the Citizens’ Rights Directive to protect third country nationals against decisions to expel them, where expulsion was on the ground that they no longer have a right of residence under the Directive. Where there has been no expulsion decision, the procedural safeguards are of no application and no question of proportionality arises.
Комментарии
Заявление на гражданство рассмотрели и одобрили за 4 месяца.
Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений заявлений клиентов.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> The Graduate Route will be reviewed by the MAC on the 14th May 2024
Anything is on the cards: the route may be recommended to b abolished, reduced to PhD only etc.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Important changed in relation to the Long Residence Rule: Long residence (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Note the following changes:
“… transitional arrangements preserve the position that continuous residence will be broken if an applicant has been absent from the UK for more than 184 days at any one time or for more than a total of 548 days overall, where that absence started before 11 April 2024. This means that:
• any single absences started before 11 April 2024 must be no longer than 184 days
• a 10-year period completed before 11 April 2024 must not have total absences of more than 548 days - ***** for 10-year periods which extend beyond 11 April 2024, there is no 548-day limit *****
• ***** from 11 April 2024 the applicant must not have been outside the UK for more than 180 days in any 12-month period *****
>>> Naturalization fees go up for the 2nd time in one year: Fees for citizenship applications and the right of abode from 4 October 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Person with indefinite leave unable to return to the UK for over 15 years after Home Office mistake: Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 372 (17 April 2024) (bailii.org)
The Home Secretary has lost a case where it was argued that a refugee who held indefinite leave to remain in the UK should not be permitted to return to the UK based on his right to a private life. The refugee in question had lost his travel document while outside the UK, tried unsuccessfully to get another one from the British embassy but failed to do so because the Home Office had not kept a record of his grant of indefinite leave.
Remarkably, this was a Cart judicial review (where a decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal can be challenged by judicial review) that had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, indicating a litany of judicial failures at earlier stages. The case is Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 372.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> A man from Belarus: 26 years with no legal status in the UK or the Supreme Court finds no human right to legal status if it’s your own fault you can’t be removed
See R (on the application of AM (Belarus)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) - The Supreme Court
In AM (Belarus) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKSC 13, in a judgment delivered by Lord Sales, the Supreme Court has held that a man living in the United Kingdom for twenty six years with no immigration status was not entitled to status on human rights or other grounds because it was his own fault. He had repeatedly been found by the Home Office and judges to be a national of Belarus but when removed there in 2001 had claimed to the Belarussian authorities not to be a citizen. They refused to accept him and he was therefore returned to the UK. Since then, he had continued to obstruct efforts to redocument him as Belarussian and remove him there.
Normally a person with twenty years of illegal residence can apply for legal status under the immigration rules. This was not open to AM, though, because he had committed several criminal offences and was therefore excluded from succeeding by the suitability criteria that apply to that route. He was therefore left relying on human rights grounds.
In the meantime, AM could not legally work, rent accommodation, access anything other than emergency NHS care, open a bank account or claim benefits other than destitution-level asylum support. He had developed very serious mental health and addiction issues and committed further offences. One was a false identity offence, perhaps rather unsurprisingly in the circumstances. This was described with considerable, arguably insulting, understatement by the Supreme Court as not “an especially enviable life”.
The Upper Tribunal held that AM was entitled to leave to remain on human grounds, his being a genuinely exceptional case. His example was hardly likely to inspire others to emulate him, given how miserable his existence in the UK had become. The Home Office appealed but the Court of Appeal agreed with the Upper Tribunal.
Allowing the Home Office appeal, the Supreme Court disapproved guidance from the Court of Appeal on limbo cases from the earlier case of RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 850.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Upper Tribunal confirms that appellants lost their rights under EU law once sponsor lost his EU citizenship: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nagdev & Anor (Procedural safeguards; expulsion; Chenchooliah) [2024] UKUT 101 (IAC) (15 February 2024) (bailii.org)
Headnote
The decision of the CJEU in Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] EUECJ C-94/18 (10 September 2019); [2020] Imm AR 80 extended the procedural safeguards in the Citizens’ Rights Directive to protect third country nationals against decisions to expel them, where expulsion was on the ground that they no longer have a right of residence under the Directive. Where there has been no expulsion decision, the procedural safeguards are of no application and no question of proportionality arises.