13 November 2023 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145923 (WhatsApp/Viber)
>>> Illegal Migration Act 2023: India and Georgia to be added to the List of 'Safe Countries'
Draft legislation (The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment of List of Safe States) Regulations 2024) was laid before Parliament yesterday (8 November 2023) that would add India and Georgia to the list of "Safe States" under Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended by section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023). The Regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. If section 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, it would mean that Georgian nationals could be returned to Georgia, and Indian nationals to India, with any human rights claim and asylum claim regarding return to those countries declared inadmissible, without the ability to make any serious harm suspensive claim. If the remainder of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, any human rights claim (that to remove the person from or require them to leave the United Kingdom or to refuse entry into the United Kingdom would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) made by any Georgian or Indian national, even those with lawful status, even those who have never met the conditions in section 2 of the Act, would be inadmissible.
14 November 2023 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145923 (WhatsApp/Viber)
>>> Important changes to the way late EUSS applications are now treated
The Home Office has changed the immigration rules and the guidance on making applications to the EU Settlement Scheme, taking a far more restrictive approach to late applications than has been the case previously.
What has changed?
The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 1496 added a ‘required date’ clause at (e) to the validity assessment of EU9 of Appendix EU. As explained in the explanatory memorandum and parliamentary statement, this means that from 9 August 2023, the decision on whether to accept a late application became a ‘standalone’ decision taken at the initial validity stage, before any assessment of suitability or eligibility takes place.
Only those applications the Home Office accepts have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline are permitted to be fully processed for suitability and eligibility. These ‘valid’ applications will receive a certificate of application to prove their rights whilst the application is under consideration.
Late applicants deemed not to have sufficient justification are rejected without any consideration of suitability and eligibility; there is no right of administrative review or appeal against the decision to reject a late application. The validity decision on the reasonable grounds is supposed to take a matter of days, but in some cases could take longer if the Home Office has to engage with the applicant to obtain more information and / or evidence about their late application reasons.
Crucially, the change in approach means that rejected late applications – notwithstanding the description – are not actually considered applications as far as the Withdrawal Agreement is concerned. This is because as per Article 18(1)(d) cited above, the requirement is to allow a person to submit an application if there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. Where there are no reasonable grounds as judged by the Home Office, there is no application to speak of.
This matters because the procedural protections contained in Article 18(1) do not kick in unless there is an application. Therefore, the obligation on the Home Office to assist applicants to obtain their status (Article 18(1)(o)) and the explicit requirement to provide a full right of judicial redress (Article 18(1)(r)), will not apply where a late application is rejected.
15 November 2023 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145923 (WhatsApp/Viber)
The Supreme Court has today held that Rwanda is not a safe country and that it would be unlawful for refugees to be removed there. The government’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment has been dismissed.
22 November 2023 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145923 (WhatsApp/Viber)
>>> Court of Appeal says deportation of mother of British child not “unduly harsh”
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the deportation of a mother with a British citizen child, finding that their separation would not be “unduly harsh”. The case is FN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1350.
Background
The appellant is a citizen of Burundi who arrived in the UK on 10 September 2003. In December 2007 she gave birth to a daughter, J, who is a British citizen. In 2009 the appellant was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for offences including fraudulently claiming benefits. During the 7.5 months she was in prison, J’s father took care of her.
In January 2020 the appellant and J’s father separated and following that J lived with the appellant. The relationship between the appellant and J’s father broke down further following “a domestic incident” in June 2021.
Deportation order and appeal
A deportation order was made in April 2010 and the appeal against that decision was dismissed in September 2010. Representations were then made on human rights and protection grounds. Further representations made in September 2017 were rejected in November 2017 but with a right of appeal as it was accepted that they amounted to a fresh claim. After unnamed “procedural complications” the appeal came before the Upper Tribunal in January 2022 and was dismissed.
It was not in dispute at the Upper Tribunal that the best interests of J would be served by both of her parents remaining in the UK. The tribunal accepted that deportation of the appellant from the UK would be “harsh”, however did not accept that it would be “unduly harsh”. The tribunal’s findings included that J would not suffer physical harm and it was not accepted that J’s father would prevent her from having contact with the appellant.
Permission to appeal was granted on the ground of whether the Upper Tribunal erred in concluding that it would not be “unduly harsh” to deport the appellant. The issues raised were a failure to take account of social services’ concerns, the police involvement, emotional harm and the child’s own views.
The Court of Appeal found that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in concluding that there was no ongoing police involvement, that social services had said they were unable to draw any conclusions as to whether there had been domestic violence. The Court also said that the Upper Tribunal was “not obliged to make a finding as to a “specific level of emotional harm”” and that the child’s own views had been taken into account.
The appeal was dismissed, with the court concluding that “The UT was justified in concluding that the effect of the appellant’s deportation on J would not be “unduly harsh” within the meaning of section 117C(5) of the 2002 Act. That assessment was neither unreasonable nor vitiated by any “identifiable flaw””.
Conclusion
The court reminded itself, with reference to several authorities, that the Upper Tribunal is expert in its jurisdiction and the court should exercise caution when interfering with those decisions. From the details provided in the Court of Appeal’s decision, this seems to have been quite a balanced case and the appellant was arguably unlucky here. It is easy to envisage a different outcome with a different judge at an earlier stage. This is a reminder of how tough these deportation cases can be.
23 November 2023 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145923 (WhatsApp/Viber)
>>> ILPA AGM on 22 November 2023: Home Office is going mad
ILPA has informed that the Home Office considers reducing the the net migration by:
- Min salary may be rased to £40 000 for Skilled Workers
- Only 1 dependent may be allowed to enter the UK with the main applicant
30th November 2023
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> From March 2024 the Home Office intends to start issuing the Digital Visas only as well as offer the applicants in the UK
>>> From summer 2024 the Home Office will be writing to the applicants to register for the UK VI online accounts. Note that the digital visas will be “connected” to the passports. That means, that if you change your passport, you will need to update your UK VI online account.
05 December 2023
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Supreme Court dismisses appeals in validity and continuous residence case
See R (Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 46
>>> Minor immigration tribunal procedure rule changes announced
Two minor but welcome changes to the immigration tribunal procedure rules. Firstly, the Upper Tribunal:
Rule 3 amends the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (S.I. 2008/2698) (“Upper Tribunal Rules”) to omit rule 22A (special procedure for providing notice of a refusal of permission to appeal in an asylum case) to restore the requirement under rule 22 of those rules for the Upper Tribunal to serve a copy of its decision to refuse permission to appeal in an asylum case on the appellant. Rule 3 also makes consequential amendments to rules 22(1) (decision in relation to permission to appeal) and rule 40(2) (decisions) of the Upper Tribunal Rules to omit references to rule 22A in those rules.
Secondly, the First-tier Tribunal:
Rule 5 amends the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (S.I. 2014/2604) to clarify the time limits that apply to an appeal against a decision of the Home Office in relation to the EU Settlement Scheme that is also subject to an administrative review, where a decision on administrative review has been made, or the application for an administrative review has been withdrawn prior to a decision on administrative review having been determined.
12 December 2023
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
The Court of Appeal has declared the government’s second attempt at an immigration exception for normal data protection law to be unlawful. The judgment in R (On the Application Of The 3Million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1474 upholds that of the High Court below, which we covered previously here: Amended data protection exemption for migrants declared unlawful. The case was brought by the 3million group.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> The UK E-visas will be rolled from around April 2024, beginning with the Skilled Worker route
The BRPs will be replaced by the E-visas in 2024. The Home Office is also preparing the video on how to access the E-visa portal etc.
Applicants MUST link their passport to their E-visa though the Home Office E-visa portal as otherwise they WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE UK, PROVE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ETC.
13 December 2023
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
It is well established that the requirements of procedural fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by a decision is given an opportunity to make representations before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result. There is a duty to give fair notice of the concerns which a decision maker has and to give a fair opportunity to respond to those concerns.
In Abdi & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer [2023] EWCA Civ 1455 the Court of Appeal considers these principles in the context of a First-tier Tribunal appeal from the dependent family members of an EEA national.
POSSIBLE GOOD NEWS for the Ukrainian applicants who used the bogus agents and came into the UK with the non-genuine Homes for Ukraine (H4U) "approval" letters. Those applicants would be waiting for their BRPs for months or even 1.5 years now.
ВОЗМЖНО ХОРОШИЕ НОВОСТИ ДЛЯ ГРАЖДАН УКРАИНЫ, КТО СТАЛИ ЖЕРТВАМИ ИММИГРАЦИОННЫХ МОШЕННИКОВ (т.е. кто въехал в Великобританию по, скорее всего, фальшивым письмам-одобрениеям по, например, cхеме Homes for Ukraine). Такие заявители обычно ждут BRP месяцами. Есть случаи ожидания BRP уже на протяжении 1.5 года.
Previously the Home Office would just reject such an application. Now something has apparently changed, and the Home Office is sending such victims of immigration fraud the short pro-formas, inviting the applicants to complete them with the view to switching into the Ukrainian Extension Scheme (UES).
Еще один клиент с Украины получил BRP по т.н Украинской Схеме.
Первоначально клиент имел дело с агентом-мощенником который, судя по всему, так и не подал заявление клиента по украинской схеме, а вместо этого просто подделал письмо-разрешение на въезд в Великобританию. Клиент ждал решения почти 1,5 года, отчаянно подавая все новые и новые заявления, так как его «агент» перестал отвечать на его сообщения. В конце концов клиент обратился в наш Legal Centre с просьбой вмешаться. Результат ? Выдача BRP по украинской схеме за ОДИН день с момента обращения в наш Legal Centre.
22 December 2023
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
In Dani (non-removal human rights submissions) Albania UKUT 293 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal has said that an application made under the EU settlement scheme does not in itself amount to a human rights claim. This is yet another case where people trying to access their rights under the EU settlement scheme have been penalised owing to an inability to get married during the pandemic.
Background
The Home Secretary rejected the appellant’s application for pre-settled status on the basis that the marriage took place after 31 December 2020 and the appellant had not been issued with a relevant document which meant he could not meet the definition of “durable partner”.
It was argued that the decision to refuse the appellant’s EU settlement scheme application breached his article 8 rights. There was also an attempt to broaden the ability to raise human rights arguments at appeal beyond the limitations at section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by arguing that a refusal of leave to remain was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision
These arguments were dismissed by the Upper Tribunal. The headnote says:
1. The mere refusal of leave to remain under the EUSS is not, without more, a “human rights claim” under section 113(1) of the 2002 Act.
2. Consequently, the “new matter” regime does not regulate the Tribunal’s consideration of non-removal human rights submissions.
3. But the Tribunal may only consider matters which it thinks are “relevant to the substance of the decision appealed against”.
4. Whether Article 8 is engaged by a decision to refuse an EUSS application is not “relevant to the substance of the decision appealed against”; the Tribunal cannot not consider it. The Tribunal does not enjoy a broad, unencumbered jurisdiction to consider non-removal human rights submissions at large.
5. In any event, Article 8 will not, without more, be engaged by a decision to refuse leave to remain under the EUSS.
6. Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not permit an appellant to advance a free-standing Article 8 claim in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal.
Conclusion
The position therefore remains that where someone wants to raise human rights in an appeal against the refusal of an application made under the EU settlement scheme, if they have not previously raised human rights as part of the application then they will need consent from the Home Secretary to raise this as a “new matter” under regulation 9(5) of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. As was the case with Mr Celik and Mr Allaraj, Mr Dani will now presumably need to seek a grant of leave under Appendix FM in order to remain in the country with his wife.
18 January 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Increase to Immigration Health Surcharge date has been confirmed
The Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2024 was made on 16 January 2024 and comes into force 21 days later, meaning the increase to the Immigration Health Surcharge (from £624 to £1,035 per person per year, with the discounted rate rising from £470 to £776 per year for students, their dependents, applicants for the Youth Mobility Scheme and children under the age of 18) will now come into force on 6 February 2024.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Can a Skilled Worker be self-employed rather than employed ?
The answer is “Yes”, but in a number of limited cases.
A Skilled Worker migrant can be self-employed. For example, an equity partner in a law firm (who would always be someone who is self-employed rather than an employee) can be sponsored under the Skilled Worker route. The "Sponsor a Skilled Worker" guidance clearly envisages this as a possibility:
What the CoS must confirm
SK11.17. For a CoS to be valid, it must meet the requirements set out in paragraphs SW 5.1 to SW 5.6A of Appendix Skilled Worker to the Immigration Rules.
SK11.18. It must confirm all of the following:
[…]
• the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) scheme reference number under which the worker will pay income tax and national insurance – if you are not required to operate PAYE on the worker’s earnings (for example, if the worker is covered by an exception set out in HMRC EP Appendix 4, or is self-employed), you must explain this on the CoS
S1.29 of Part 2 of the Worker/Temporary Worker sponsor guidance provides the following clarification:
S1.29. If the worker is self-employed, there must be a genuine contract for employment or services between you and the worker.
This contract must show:
• the names and signatures of all involved (which must include you and the worker)
• the start and end dates of the contract
• details of the job, or piece of work, the worker has been contracted to do
• how much the worker will be paid
>>> UK Employer Sponsorship AUTOMATIC license extension
From the Home Office:
“FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL SPONSORS WITH A LICENCE EXPIRY DATE ON OR AFTER 6 APRIL 2024: From 6 April 2024 we will remove the requirement to renew your sponsor licence. If your licence is due to expire on or after this date you will no longer need to apply to renew your licence or pay a renewal fee. To prepare for this, we have extended licence expiry dates on all licences due to expire on or after 6 April 2024 by 10 years. You do not need to take any action. If you have already received a notification to renew your licence, please ignore it. You can select the “Licence Summary” function in SMS to view your licence expiry date. Information on the renewal process can be found in the Workers and Temporary Workers guidance Part 3 or Student sponsor guidance Document 1.
If you have already made an application to renew your licence we will contact you shortly and arrange to refund your renewal fee.”
29 January 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Changes to treatment of some late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme in new guidance
The Home Office has introduced some flexibility for some people who are applying late to the EU Settlement Scheme, after the rules were severely tightened in August 2023. The new version 22 of the guidance for caseworkers on the EU Settlement Scheme applies to decisions made from 16 January 2024.
Changes for those who hold permanent residence and are applying late.
In the section “Examples of reasonable grounds” for making a late application, further explanation and two new examples have been given on pages 50 and 51 under “Circumstances which will not generally constitute reasonable grounds for delay in making an application”. This provides for situations where the person had a “reasonable belief” that they did not need to apply or “reasonable basis” for being unaware that they had to do so. The application must have been made without further delay once they became aware of the need to make it.
Relevant factors in support of the late application being accepted can include the following, but these need to be “based on credible information and supporting evidence” that the person:
• is a first-time applicant to the EU Settlement Scheme with a residence document issued under the EEA Regulations, indefinite leave to enter or remain under another route or long continuous UK residence identified by the automated checks of tax and benefits records
• has an EEA national spouse, civil partner or durable partner or other close family member or members who applied in-time to the scheme, but believed that they could rely on a residence document issued under the EEA Regulations
• has a compliant positive immigration history
• has received incorrect advice from an employer or landlord since the end of the grace period on 30 June 2021 as to their right to work or rent in the UK without EU Settlement Scheme status
• has travelled in and out of the UK since 30 June 2021 without being signposted to the scheme
The guidance says that people in this situation will still need to satisfy the Home Office decision maker “on the balance of probabilities” that they have reasonable grounds for making the late application. The more of the above factors that are present in a case, the stronger the argument will be for the application to be accepted.
Returning residents
There has been a small addition to page 15. This directs anyone who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain under Appendix EU, but who has lost this due to spending more than five years outside the UK, to apply as a returning resident if they want to return to the UK for settlement.
Concession for certain children of a ‘relevant EEA family permit case’
There is a new section on page 22 “Concession for certain children of a ‘relevant EEA family permit case’”. This applies where the parent is a dependent relative who meets subsection (a) of the definition of a ‘relevant family permit case’ at Annex 1 of Appendix EU and the child was born outside the UK either:
• before 11 pm on 31 December 2020 and a valid application for an EEA family permit was not made under the EEA Regulations before then, or
• after 11pm on 31 December 2020 and so it was not possible to make such an application before then.
Where this applies and the child was granted an EU Settlement Scheme family permit outside Appendix EU (Family Permit) to either accompany their parents to the UK or join them there, an application can be made for the child as a family member (dependent relative) of a relevant EEA citizen. They will then be deemed to meet the necessary requirements, although the application must be made “as soon as reasonably practicable” and generally within three months of arrival to the UK.
31January 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
A ministerial statement made today has confirmed that there are two statements of changes coming in the next couple of months. The first will remove the ability of care workers to bring dependants, and the second will include the increase to the minimum income requirement for families, among other changes.
The 19 February statement of changes
The 19 February statement of changes will remove the rights of care workers and senior care workers to bring dependants. This will come into force on 11 MARCH 2024. The other change made at this stage is that care providers in England will only be able to sponsor workers if they are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
The 14 March statement of changes
The minimum income requirement for partners applying under Appendix FM will be increased to £29,000 on 11 APRIL 2024. No dates have been given for the further incremental increases yet, just that there will be two more increases and the final one will take effect “by early 2025”.
This statement of changes will increase the earnings threshold for those on the skilled worker route, from £26,200 to £38,700. This change will come into force from 4 APRIL 2024. The Health and Care visa route is exempt from this change, as are workers in national pay scale occupations.
Other changes include the implementation of any changes following the Migration Advisory Committee’s rapid review of the shortage occupation list. The 20% going rate discount for roles on the list WILL BE REMOVED. These changes will also come into force from “early April 2024”.
01 Februaery 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
A person applying from outside the UK on the Victim of Domestic Abuse (VDA) route must apply for entry clearance online on the gov.uk website on the specified form: “Return to the UK.”
05 February 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> More on the new Domestic Abuse immigration Rules
New immigration rules relating to victims of domestic abuse applying for indefinite leave came into last week. Immigration applications made on or after 31 January 2024 will be dealt with under the new rules.
There have been no changes to the scope of who is eligible under this domestic abuse route.
To be eligible for indefinite leave as a victim of domestic abuse an applicant must still show that their last visa is in one of the permitted categories* and their relationship has broken down permanently because of domestic abuse.
*The permitted categories are listed in the immigration rules and include the partner of a British citizen, the partner of a settled migrant and the partner of a refugee. They also include the partner of an EU citizen with pre-settled status but ONLY where the sponsored partner had leave under Appendix FM.
What has changed
• The rules introduce a new route for victims of domestic abuse abandoned overseas to apply for indefinite leave to enter the UK if their relationship has broken down permanently because of domestic abuse and they have been abandoned overseas.
• It is no longer necessary for relationship breakdown to occur during the last grant of leave. This means the relationship breakdown can happen even after a partner visa has expired as long as the applicant’s last grant of leave was in a category that permits access to the domestic abuse route.
• The introduction of rules relating to dependent children who can apply for indefinite leave alongside or after their parent. The rules relating to children are now more complicated. Government’s decision to include a requirement that children must be supported without additional recourse to public funds means that we may see children refused settlement even where their parent is granted it.
• The general grounds for refusal in Part 9 of the rules now apply to the domestic abuse route. There is no longer provision in the domestic abuse route for a grant of limited leave where there is low level criminality – applications will now either be granted settlement or refused.
16 February 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Reminder if your BRP expires on 31 December 2024: Biometric residence permits (BRPs): Report a problem with your new BRP - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
You do not need to tell UKVI if your BRP expires on 31 December 2024 but your immigration status (for example, your visa) allows you to stay longer.
You will not need a BRP from 1 January 2025. You’ll be able to prove your immigration status online, without a BRP.
UKVI will update their information on how to prove your immigration status in early 2024. You do not need to do anything and your immigration status will not be affected.
26 February 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Can I apply to switch into the EU Pre-Settled status from within the UK on a Visitor visa ?
• The answer is “Yes”, based on the Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules: HC 617, 10 September 2021.
Namely, the changes to EU Settlement Scheme family permits, including “to allow a joining family member to apply to the EUSS whilst in the UK as a visitor”
18 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Sponsors no longer need to report changes to hybrid and remote working: Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors part 3: sponsor duties and compliance (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The updated Sponsor Guidance explains UKVI’s reasoning:
“We recognise that many organisations have adopted a “hybrid working” model, where their workers work remotely (from either their home or another remote site, such as a work hub space) on a regular basis, as well as regularly attending a ‘traditional’ work location (such as one or more of your offices or branches, or a client site)…”
Some reports are still needed
UKVI has confirmed that sponsors “no longer need to tell us if a sponsored worker is moving to a hybrid working pattern but you must continue to report any changes to their main office work location, or of any new client sites, if applicable, and maintain suitable records of your sponsored workers’ working patterns”.
In such cases, it is important that employers are aware that UKVI can ask for an explanation as to why the sponsored worker needs to live in the UK at all.
Compliance
UKVI’s officers carry out on-site in person audits as well as remote ones to check compliance. It is therefore important that sponsors retain records, including relating to sponsored worker’s work patterns, to demonstrate that they understand and comply with the Sponsor Guidance.
20 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Roehrig upheld by Court of Appeal: no changes for certain children of EU citizens not entitled to British citizenship: Roehrig, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 240 (12 March 2024) (bailii.org)
In the context of British nationality law, EEA citizens residing in the UK from 2 October 2000 continue to not meet the definition of “settled”, unless they held indefinite leave to remain or had acquired permanent residence. This was confirmed last week by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Roehrig) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 240.
26 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Withdrawal Agreement cannot help woman who made wrong type of family permit application says Court of Appeal: Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248 (14 March 2024) (bailii.org)
The Court of Appeal has upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision that those who applied for the wrong type of family permit before the end of the Brexit transition period cannot benefit from the EU Settlement Scheme or the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
The decision is Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248. The leading judgment is provided by Lord Justice Dingemans.
28 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Irish High Court finds decision to list the UK as a safe country for asylum seekers unlawful:
See A & anor v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General & anor [2024] IEHC 164
Namely, the Irish High Court has held that the decision to put the UK on the list of safe third countries to return people seeking asylum to has been held unlawful.
UK is no longer a safe country for the asylum seekers, it seems.
This case is a useful reminder that what the UK is doing in relation to asylum policy does have an impact on its relationship with other countries. Presumably if EU countries are unable to return people seeking asylum to the UK, they will be reluctant to accept any the UK wishes to return.
03 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> High Court rejects trafficking claim from claimant who had not yet been exploited: MT, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 640 (Admin) (22 March 2024) (bailii.org)
The High Court has dismissed a judicial review raised by an Albanian national challenging a negative reasonable grounds (first stage) decision in his trafficking claim, finding that his employer did not have the intention to exploit him at the point of recruitment. The case is R (MT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 640 (Admin). The decision focuses on a fairly narrow point of law, namely the “purpose” element of the trafficking definition under Article 4 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against the Trafficking in Human Being (“ECAT”).
Комментарии
>>> Illegal Migration Act 2023: India and Georgia to be added to the List of 'Safe Countries'
Draft legislation (The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment of List of Safe States) Regulations 2024) was laid before Parliament yesterday (8 November 2023) that would add India and Georgia to the list of "Safe States" under Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended by section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023). The Regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. If section 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, it would mean that Georgian nationals could be returned to Georgia, and Indian nationals to India, with any human rights claim and asylum claim regarding return to those countries declared inadmissible, without the ability to make any serious harm suspensive claim. If the remainder of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, any human rights claim (that to remove the person from or require them to leave the United Kingdom or to refuse entry into the United Kingdom would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) made by any Georgian or Indian national, even those with lawful status, even those who have never met the conditions in section 2 of the Act, would be inadmissible.
>>> Important changes to the way late EUSS applications are now treated
The Home Office has changed the immigration rules and the guidance on making applications to the EU Settlement Scheme, taking a far more restrictive approach to late applications than has been the case previously.
What has changed?
The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 1496 added a ‘required date’ clause at (e) to the validity assessment of EU9 of Appendix EU. As explained in the explanatory memorandum and parliamentary statement, this means that from 9 August 2023, the decision on whether to accept a late application became a ‘standalone’ decision taken at the initial validity stage, before any assessment of suitability or eligibility takes place.
Only those applications the Home Office accepts have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline are permitted to be fully processed for suitability and eligibility. These ‘valid’ applications will receive a certificate of application to prove their rights whilst the application is under consideration.
Late applicants deemed not to have sufficient justification are rejected without any consideration of suitability and eligibility; there is no right of administrative review or appeal against the decision to reject a late application. The validity decision on the reasonable grounds is supposed to take a matter of days, but in some cases could take longer if the Home Office has to engage with the applicant to obtain more information and / or evidence about their late application reasons.
Crucially, the change in approach means that rejected late applications – notwithstanding the description – are not actually considered applications as far as the Withdrawal Agreement is concerned. This is because as per Article 18(1)(d) cited above, the requirement is to allow a person to submit an application if there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. Where there are no reasonable grounds as judged by the Home Office, there is no application to speak of.
This matters because the procedural protections contained in Article 18(1) do not kick in unless there is an application. Therefore, the obligation on the Home Office to assist applicants to obtain their status (Article 18(1)(o)) and the explicit requirement to provide a full right of judicial redress (Article 18(1)(r)), will not apply where a late application is rejected.
>>> Information booklet for asylum applications
See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-leaflet-for-asylum-applications/information-booklet-about-your-asylum-application
>>> UK Supreme Court finds Rwanda is not a safe country to which refugees can be removed: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2023/42
The Supreme Court has today held that Rwanda is not a safe country and that it would be unlawful for refugees to be removed there. The government’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment has been dismissed.
>>> Court of Appeal says deportation of mother of British child not “unduly harsh”
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the deportation of a mother with a British citizen child, finding that their separation would not be “unduly harsh”. The case is FN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1350.
Background
The appellant is a citizen of Burundi who arrived in the UK on 10 September 2003. In December 2007 she gave birth to a daughter, J, who is a British citizen. In 2009 the appellant was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for offences including fraudulently claiming benefits. During the 7.5 months she was in prison, J’s father took care of her.
In January 2020 the appellant and J’s father separated and following that J lived with the appellant. The relationship between the appellant and J’s father broke down further following “a domestic incident” in June 2021.
Deportation order and appeal
A deportation order was made in April 2010 and the appeal against that decision was dismissed in September 2010. Representations were then made on human rights and protection grounds. Further representations made in September 2017 were rejected in November 2017 but with a right of appeal as it was accepted that they amounted to a fresh claim. After unnamed “procedural complications” the appeal came before the Upper Tribunal in January 2022 and was dismissed.
It was not in dispute at the Upper Tribunal that the best interests of J would be served by both of her parents remaining in the UK. The tribunal accepted that deportation of the appellant from the UK would be “harsh”, however did not accept that it would be “unduly harsh”. The tribunal’s findings included that J would not suffer physical harm and it was not accepted that J’s father would prevent her from having contact with the appellant.
Permission to appeal was granted on the ground of whether the Upper Tribunal erred in concluding that it would not be “unduly harsh” to deport the appellant. The issues raised were a failure to take account of social services’ concerns, the police involvement, emotional harm and the child’s own views.
The Court of Appeal found that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in concluding that there was no ongoing police involvement, that social services had said they were unable to draw any conclusions as to whether there had been domestic violence. The Court also said that the Upper Tribunal was “not obliged to make a finding as to a “specific level of emotional harm”” and that the child’s own views had been taken into account.
The appeal was dismissed, with the court concluding that “The UT was justified in concluding that the effect of the appellant’s deportation on J would not be “unduly harsh” within the meaning of section 117C(5) of the 2002 Act. That assessment was neither unreasonable nor vitiated by any “identifiable flaw””.
Conclusion
The court reminded itself, with reference to several authorities, that the Upper Tribunal is expert in its jurisdiction and the court should exercise caution when interfering with those decisions. From the details provided in the Court of Appeal’s decision, this seems to have been quite a balanced case and the appellant was arguably unlucky here. It is easy to envisage a different outcome with a different judge at an earlier stage. This is a reminder of how tough these deportation cases can be.
>>> ILPA AGM on 22 November 2023: Home Office is going mad
ILPA has informed that the Home Office considers reducing the the net migration by:
- Min salary may be rased to £40 000 for Skilled Workers
- Only 1 dependent may be allowed to enter the UK with the main applicant
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> From March 2024 the Home Office intends to start issuing the Digital Visas only as well as offer the applicants in the UK
>>> From summer 2024 the Home Office will be writing to the applicants to register for the UK VI online accounts. Note that the digital visas will be “connected” to the passports. That means, that if you change your passport, you will need to update your UK VI online account.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Supreme Court dismisses appeals in validity and continuous residence case
See R (Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 46
>>> Minor immigration tribunal procedure rule changes announced
Two minor but welcome changes to the immigration tribunal procedure rules. Firstly, the Upper Tribunal:
Rule 3 amends the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (S.I. 2008/2698) (“Upper Tribunal Rules”) to omit rule 22A (special procedure for providing notice of a refusal of permission to appeal in an asylum case) to restore the requirement under rule 22 of those rules for the Upper Tribunal to serve a copy of its decision to refuse permission to appeal in an asylum case on the appellant. Rule 3 also makes consequential amendments to rules 22(1) (decision in relation to permission to appeal) and rule 40(2) (decisions) of the Upper Tribunal Rules to omit references to rule 22A in those rules.
Secondly, the First-tier Tribunal:
Rule 5 amends the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (S.I. 2014/2604) to clarify the time limits that apply to an appeal against a decision of the Home Office in relation to the EU Settlement Scheme that is also subject to an administrative review, where a decision on administrative review has been made, or the application for an administrative review has been withdrawn prior to a decision on administrative review having been determined.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Yet again the immigration exception to data protection found unlawful: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/1474.html
The Court of Appeal has declared the government’s second attempt at an immigration exception for normal data protection law to be unlawful. The judgment in R (On the Application Of The 3Million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1474 upholds that of the High Court below, which we covered previously here: Amended data protection exemption for migrants declared unlawful. The case was brought by the 3million group.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> The UK E-visas will be rolled from around April 2024, beginning with the Skilled Worker route
The BRPs will be replaced by the E-visas in 2024. The Home Office is also preparing the video on how to access the E-visa portal etc.
Applicants MUST link their passport to their E-visa though the Home Office E-visa portal as otherwise they WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE UK, PROVE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ETC.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Court of Appeal: raising an entirely new issue in a determination for the first time is unfair: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/1455.html
It is well established that the requirements of procedural fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by a decision is given an opportunity to make representations before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result. There is a duty to give fair notice of the concerns which a decision maker has and to give a fair opportunity to respond to those concerns.
In Abdi & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer [2023] EWCA Civ 1455 the Court of Appeal considers these principles in the context of a First-tier Tribunal appeal from the dependent family members of an EEA national.
ВОЗМЖНО ХОРОШИЕ НОВОСТИ ДЛЯ ГРАЖДАН УКРАИНЫ, КТО СТАЛИ ЖЕРТВАМИ ИММИГРАЦИОННЫХ МОШЕННИКОВ (т.е. кто въехал в Великобританию по, скорее всего, фальшивым письмам-одобрениеям по, например, cхеме Homes for Ukraine). Такие заявители обычно ждут BRP месяцами. Есть случаи ожидания BRP уже на протяжении 1.5 года.
Previously the Home Office would just reject such an application. Now something has apparently changed, and the Home Office is sending such victims of immigration fraud the short pro-formas, inviting the applicants to complete them with the view to switching into the Ukrainian Extension Scheme (UES).
See the attached pro-forma example.
I hope it helps.
Еще один клиент с Украины получил BRP по т.н Украинской Схеме.
Первоначально клиент имел дело с агентом-мощенником который, судя по всему, так и не подал заявление клиента по украинской схеме, а вместо этого просто подделал письмо-разрешение на въезд в Великобританию. Клиент ждал решения почти 1,5 года, отчаянно подавая все новые и новые заявления, так как его «агент» перестал отвечать на его сообщения. В конце концов клиент обратился в наш Legal Centre с просьбой вмешаться. Результат ? Выдача BRP по украинской схеме за ОДИН день с момента обращения в наш Legal Centre.
Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений решений клиентов.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Article 8 not automatically engaged by a refusal under the EU settlement scheme: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2023/293.html
In Dani (non-removal human rights submissions) Albania UKUT 293 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal has said that an application made under the EU settlement scheme does not in itself amount to a human rights claim. This is yet another case where people trying to access their rights under the EU settlement scheme have been penalised owing to an inability to get married during the pandemic.
Background
The Home Secretary rejected the appellant’s application for pre-settled status on the basis that the marriage took place after 31 December 2020 and the appellant had not been issued with a relevant document which meant he could not meet the definition of “durable partner”.
It was argued that the decision to refuse the appellant’s EU settlement scheme application breached his article 8 rights. There was also an attempt to broaden the ability to raise human rights arguments at appeal beyond the limitations at section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by arguing that a refusal of leave to remain was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision
These arguments were dismissed by the Upper Tribunal. The headnote says:
1. The mere refusal of leave to remain under the EUSS is not, without more, a “human rights claim” under section 113(1) of the 2002 Act.
2. Consequently, the “new matter” regime does not regulate the Tribunal’s consideration of non-removal human rights submissions.
3. But the Tribunal may only consider matters which it thinks are “relevant to the substance of the decision appealed against”.
4. Whether Article 8 is engaged by a decision to refuse an EUSS application is not “relevant to the substance of the decision appealed against”; the Tribunal cannot not consider it. The Tribunal does not enjoy a broad, unencumbered jurisdiction to consider non-removal human rights submissions at large.
5. In any event, Article 8 will not, without more, be engaged by a decision to refuse leave to remain under the EUSS.
6. Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not permit an appellant to advance a free-standing Article 8 claim in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal.
Conclusion
The position therefore remains that where someone wants to raise human rights in an appeal against the refusal of an application made under the EU settlement scheme, if they have not previously raised human rights as part of the application then they will need consent from the Home Secretary to raise this as a “new matter” under regulation 9(5) of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. As was the case with Mr Celik and Mr Allaraj, Mr Dani will now presumably need to seek a grant of leave under Appendix FM in order to remain in the country with his wife.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Increase to Immigration Health Surcharge date has been confirmed
The Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2024 was made on 16 January 2024 and comes into force 21 days later, meaning the increase to the Immigration Health Surcharge (from £624 to £1,035 per person per year, with the discounted rate rising from £470 to £776 per year for students, their dependents, applicants for the Youth Mobility Scheme and children under the age of 18) will now come into force on 6 February 2024.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Can a Skilled Worker be self-employed rather than employed ?
The answer is “Yes”, but in a number of limited cases.
A Skilled Worker migrant can be self-employed. For example, an equity partner in a law firm (who would always be someone who is self-employed rather than an employee) can be sponsored under the Skilled Worker route. The "Sponsor a Skilled Worker" guidance clearly envisages this as a possibility:
What the CoS must confirm
SK11.17. For a CoS to be valid, it must meet the requirements set out in paragraphs SW 5.1 to SW 5.6A of Appendix Skilled Worker to the Immigration Rules.
SK11.18. It must confirm all of the following:
[…]
• the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) scheme reference number under which the worker will pay income tax and national insurance – if you are not required to operate PAYE on the worker’s earnings (for example, if the worker is covered by an exception set out in HMRC EP Appendix 4, or is self-employed), you must explain this on the CoS
S1.29 of Part 2 of the Worker/Temporary Worker sponsor guidance provides the following clarification:
S1.29. If the worker is self-employed, there must be a genuine contract for employment or services between you and the worker.
This contract must show:
• the names and signatures of all involved (which must include you and the worker)
• the start and end dates of the contract
• details of the job, or piece of work, the worker has been contracted to do
• how much the worker will be paid
>>> UK Employer Sponsorship AUTOMATIC license extension
From the Home Office:
“FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL SPONSORS WITH A LICENCE EXPIRY DATE ON OR AFTER 6 APRIL 2024: From 6 April 2024 we will remove the requirement to renew your sponsor licence. If your licence is due to expire on or after this date you will no longer need to apply to renew your licence or pay a renewal fee. To prepare for this, we have extended licence expiry dates on all licences due to expire on or after 6 April 2024 by 10 years. You do not need to take any action. If you have already received a notification to renew your licence, please ignore it. You can select the “Licence Summary” function in SMS to view your licence expiry date. Information on the renewal process can be found in the Workers and Temporary Workers guidance Part 3 or Student sponsor guidance Document 1.
If you have already made an application to renew your licence we will contact you shortly and arrange to refund your renewal fee.”
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Changes to treatment of some late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme in new guidance
The Home Office has introduced some flexibility for some people who are applying late to the EU Settlement Scheme, after the rules were severely tightened in August 2023. The new version 22 of the guidance for caseworkers on the EU Settlement Scheme applies to decisions made from 16 January 2024.
Changes for those who hold permanent residence and are applying late.
In the section “Examples of reasonable grounds” for making a late application, further explanation and two new examples have been given on pages 50 and 51 under “Circumstances which will not generally constitute reasonable grounds for delay in making an application”. This provides for situations where the person had a “reasonable belief” that they did not need to apply or “reasonable basis” for being unaware that they had to do so. The application must have been made without further delay once they became aware of the need to make it.
Relevant factors in support of the late application being accepted can include the following, but these need to be “based on credible information and supporting evidence” that the person:
• is a first-time applicant to the EU Settlement Scheme with a residence document issued under the EEA Regulations, indefinite leave to enter or remain under another route or long continuous UK residence identified by the automated checks of tax and benefits records
• has an EEA national spouse, civil partner or durable partner or other close family member or members who applied in-time to the scheme, but believed that they could rely on a residence document issued under the EEA Regulations
• has a compliant positive immigration history
• has received incorrect advice from an employer or landlord since the end of the grace period on 30 June 2021 as to their right to work or rent in the UK without EU Settlement Scheme status
• has travelled in and out of the UK since 30 June 2021 without being signposted to the scheme
The guidance says that people in this situation will still need to satisfy the Home Office decision maker “on the balance of probabilities” that they have reasonable grounds for making the late application. The more of the above factors that are present in a case, the stronger the argument will be for the application to be accepted.
Returning residents
There has been a small addition to page 15. This directs anyone who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain under Appendix EU, but who has lost this due to spending more than five years outside the UK, to apply as a returning resident if they want to return to the UK for settlement.
Concession for certain children of a ‘relevant EEA family permit case’
There is a new section on page 22 “Concession for certain children of a ‘relevant EEA family permit case’”. This applies where the parent is a dependent relative who meets subsection (a) of the definition of a ‘relevant family permit case’ at Annex 1 of Appendix EU and the child was born outside the UK either:
• before 11 pm on 31 December 2020 and a valid application for an EEA family permit was not made under the EEA Regulations before then, or
• after 11pm on 31 December 2020 and so it was not possible to make such an application before then.
Where this applies and the child was granted an EU Settlement Scheme family permit outside Appendix EU (Family Permit) to either accompany their parents to the UK or join them there, an application can be made for the child as a family member (dependent relative) of a relevant EEA citizen. They will then be deemed to meet the necessary requirements, although the application must be made “as soon as reasonably practicable” and generally within three months of arrival to the UK.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Dates confirmed for changes to income thresholds for family and skilled worker visas: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-01-30/hcws222
A ministerial statement made today has confirmed that there are two statements of changes coming in the next couple of months. The first will remove the ability of care workers to bring dependants, and the second will include the increase to the minimum income requirement for families, among other changes.
The 19 February statement of changes
The 19 February statement of changes will remove the rights of care workers and senior care workers to bring dependants. This will come into force on 11 MARCH 2024. The other change made at this stage is that care providers in England will only be able to sponsor workers if they are regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
The 14 March statement of changes
The minimum income requirement for partners applying under Appendix FM will be increased to £29,000 on 11 APRIL 2024. No dates have been given for the further incremental increases yet, just that there will be two more increases and the final one will take effect “by early 2025”.
This statement of changes will increase the earnings threshold for those on the skilled worker route, from £26,200 to £38,700. This change will come into force from 4 APRIL 2024. The Health and Care visa route is exempt from this change, as are workers in national pay scale occupations.
Other changes include the implementation of any changes following the Migration Advisory Committee’s rapid review of the shortage occupation list. The 20% going rate discount for roles on the list WILL BE REMOVED. These changes will also come into force from “early April 2024”.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Victims of Domestic Abuse may not apply to come to the UK from abroad: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victims-of-domestic-violence
A person applying from outside the UK on the Victim of Domestic Abuse (VDA) route must apply for entry clearance online on the gov.uk website on the specified form: “Return to the UK.”
>>> Those applying for 12 months or less on the International Sportsperson route can now apply from a third country: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/where-to-apply-ecb05?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=71d49c58-5f4f-40f6-86c5-6b12eb2d845e&utm_content=daily
Статистика по украинским схемам
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> More on the new Domestic Abuse immigration Rules
New immigration rules relating to victims of domestic abuse applying for indefinite leave came into last week. Immigration applications made on or after 31 January 2024 will be dealt with under the new rules.
The new immigration rules, called ‘Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse’ or ‘Appendix VDA’ for short, can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-victim-of-domestic-abuse
The new policy guidance that Home Office caseworkers will use to decide applications can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victims-of-domestic-violence. Policy guidance has been significantly re-worked since its previous version.
What has stayed the same
There have been no changes to the scope of who is eligible under this domestic abuse route.
To be eligible for indefinite leave as a victim of domestic abuse an applicant must still show that their last visa is in one of the permitted categories* and their relationship has broken down permanently because of domestic abuse.
*The permitted categories are listed in the immigration rules and include the partner of a British citizen, the partner of a settled migrant and the partner of a refugee. They also include the partner of an EU citizen with pre-settled status but ONLY where the sponsored partner had leave under Appendix FM.
What has changed
• The rules introduce a new route for victims of domestic abuse abandoned overseas to apply for indefinite leave to enter the UK if their relationship has broken down permanently because of domestic abuse and they have been abandoned overseas.
• It is no longer necessary for relationship breakdown to occur during the last grant of leave. This means the relationship breakdown can happen even after a partner visa has expired as long as the applicant’s last grant of leave was in a category that permits access to the domestic abuse route.
• The introduction of rules relating to dependent children who can apply for indefinite leave alongside or after their parent. The rules relating to children are now more complicated. Government’s decision to include a requirement that children must be supported without additional recourse to public funds means that we may see children refused settlement even where their parent is granted it.
• The general grounds for refusal in Part 9 of the rules now apply to the domestic abuse route. There is no longer provision in the domestic abuse route for a grant of limited leave where there is low level criminality – applications will now either be granted settlement or refused.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Reminder if your BRP expires on 31 December 2024: Biometric residence permits (BRPs): Report a problem with your new BRP - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
You do not need to tell UKVI if your BRP expires on 31 December 2024 but your immigration status (for example, your visa) allows you to stay longer.
You will not need a BRP from 1 January 2025. You’ll be able to prove your immigration status online, without a BRP.
UKVI will update their information on how to prove your immigration status in early 2024. You do not need to do anything and your immigration status will not be affected.
Basically, the Stateless persons can now enjoy the same family "reunion" rights as the foreign spouses of British citizens.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Can I apply to switch into the EU Pre-Settled status from within the UK on a Visitor visa ?
• The answer is “Yes”, based on the Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules: HC 617, 10 September 2021.
Namely, the changes to EU Settlement Scheme family permits, including “to allow a joining family member to apply to the EUSS whilst in the UK as a visitor”
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Sponsors no longer need to report changes to hybrid and remote working: Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors part 3: sponsor duties and compliance (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The updated Sponsor Guidance explains UKVI’s reasoning:
“We recognise that many organisations have adopted a “hybrid working” model, where their workers work remotely (from either their home or another remote site, such as a work hub space) on a regular basis, as well as regularly attending a ‘traditional’ work location (such as one or more of your offices or branches, or a client site)…”
Some reports are still needed
UKVI has confirmed that sponsors “no longer need to tell us if a sponsored worker is moving to a hybrid working pattern but you must continue to report any changes to their main office work location, or of any new client sites, if applicable, and maintain suitable records of your sponsored workers’ working patterns”.
In such cases, it is important that employers are aware that UKVI can ask for an explanation as to why the sponsored worker needs to live in the UK at all.
Compliance
UKVI’s officers carry out on-site in person audits as well as remote ones to check compliance. It is therefore important that sponsors retain records, including relating to sponsored worker’s work patterns, to demonstrate that they understand and comply with the Sponsor Guidance.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Roehrig upheld by Court of Appeal: no changes for certain children of EU citizens not entitled to British citizenship: Roehrig, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 240 (12 March 2024) (bailii.org)
In the context of British nationality law, EEA citizens residing in the UK from 2 October 2000 continue to not meet the definition of “settled”, unless they held indefinite leave to remain or had acquired permanent residence. This was confirmed last week by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Roehrig) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 240.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Online immigration status (eVisa)
Information on eVisas and why you need one: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/online-immigration-status-evisa?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=67dbd4de-ba5f-4b06-9e28-7065186bce25&utm_content=daily
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Withdrawal Agreement cannot help woman who made wrong type of family permit application says Court of Appeal: Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248 (14 March 2024) (bailii.org)
The Court of Appeal has upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision that those who applied for the wrong type of family permit before the end of the Brexit transition period cannot benefit from the EU Settlement Scheme or the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
The decision is Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248. The leading judgment is provided by Lord Justice Dingemans.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> Irish High Court finds decision to list the UK as a safe country for asylum seekers unlawful:
See A & anor v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General & anor [2024] IEHC 164
Namely, the Irish High Court has held that the decision to put the UK on the list of safe third countries to return people seeking asylum to has been held unlawful.
UK is no longer a safe country for the asylum seekers, it seems.
This case is a useful reminder that what the UK is doing in relation to asylum policy does have an impact on its relationship with other countries. Presumably if EU countries are unable to return people seeking asylum to the UK, they will be reluctant to accept any the UK wishes to return.
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)
>>> High Court rejects trafficking claim from claimant who had not yet been exploited: MT, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 640 (Admin) (22 March 2024) (bailii.org)
The High Court has dismissed a judicial review raised by an Albanian national challenging a negative reasonable grounds (first stage) decision in his trafficking claim, finding that his employer did not have the intention to exploit him at the point of recruitment. The case is R (MT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 640 (Admin). The decision focuses on a fairly narrow point of law, namely the “purpose” element of the trafficking definition under Article 4 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against the Trafficking in Human Being (“ECAT”).
Заявление по натурализации рассмотрели и одобрили за 4 месяца.
Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений решений клиентов.