UK & EEA Immigration Lawyer & Advocate

Страница 18 из 18 ПерваяПервая ... 8161718
Показано с 171 по 177 из 177

Тема: Важные судебные решения и полезная информация

  1. #171
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 28 December 2016

    28 December 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance:
    RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre:

    • The UK guidance “Entering the UK as the holder of an Article 10 residence card” explicitly acknowledges that a permanent residence card will be valid for entry to the UK without the need for a visa:

    “If you are a non-EEA national who holds a valid genuine residence card, issued to you as the family member of an EEA national who is exercising free movement rights in another EEA State (i.e. not your EEA relative’s Member State of nationality) under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC (the ‘Free Movement Directive’), you may use this document for travel to the UK if you are accompanying your EEA national relative here, or joining your EEA national relative in the UK.

    Another document, “Permanent Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen” issued under Article 20 of the Directive is also acceptable.”:

    UK: An Overview – Migration Observatory Review Key Points: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...n-uk-overview/

    The University of Oxford based Migration Observatory has published a new and quite interesting report on young migrants. The key points are:

    • Migrants tend to be young when they arrive, typically as young adults coming for work or study, or as children accompanying their parents.
    • Most young people whose first or main language is not English also speak good English. They tend to have lower educational achievement when they start school, but they make faster progress and so the gap is largely eliminated by age 16.
    • Young migrants are more likely to have degree-level qualifications than the UK born.
    • Employment outcomes for young migrants vary depending on their country of origin, gender, and age at arrival in the UK. EEA migrants have high employment rates but are overrepresented in low-skilled work; non-EEA migrants are overrepresented in high-skilled jobs but have lower employment rates.
    • International students who remain in the UK after their studies have more favourable labour market outcomes than the average across the foreign-born population.
    • It is too early to predict the impact of Brexit on the numbers and outcomes of young migrants living in the UK, although several future scenarios involve a shift in the balance of future migration towards people from non-EU countries.

    Poland, India, Pakistan, Germany and Romania make up 5 of the top 6 countries of origin for both under 30’s and the foreign-born population as a whole. The table on reasons for coming to the UK is divided by EEA/non-EEA and shows that proportionately more EEA migrants come for economic reasons and more non-EEA migrants come for study and as family or dependants.

    On Brexit, the report reiterates that if the UK Government requires EEA migrants in the UK to prove they are qualified persons, significant numbers of them will be excluded. The report points out that students (generally young people) are one of the groups in potential danger:
    People who are most likely to face difficulties meeting a permanent-residence-style requirement include the self-employed, who may find it difficult to produce the necessary paperwork; very low earners, whose work in the UK may not be deemed sufficient for them to qualify as ‘workers’ under EU rules; and students or ‘self-sufficient’ people, who are expected to have comprehensive sickness insurance in the UK but who may not have been aware of this requirement.

    Albino child from Nigeria wins asylum claim:

    A child can be at risk of persecutory harm contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in circumstances where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk.

    Upper Tribunal approach to proxy marriages conceded to be wrong by Home Office:

    In an interesting development on the validity of proxy marriages, the Home Office has taken the view in a Court of Appeal case that the Upper Tribunal’s approach in Kareem [2014] UKUT 24 is wrong in law. The Court of Appeal has declined to simply overrule Kareem on this basis, though, and is asking the Attorney General to appoint an advocate to the court.
    The general rule of private international law is that a marriage which was lawful in the country in which it occurred will be recognised in other countries. Kareem goes behind this rule in holding that a marriage contracted in country A will only be recognised in the UK if it is also recognised in intermediary country B.

    If Kareem does prove to be wrong there will be a lot of people denied their free movement rights and put to considerable litigation expense by the approach of the Upper Tribunal.

    Immigration Minister sets out Home Office approach to ETS language testing cases:

    Interesting letter from the Immigration Minister to the Home Affairs Select Committee setting out the Home Office approach to and strategy on the ETS litigation.

  2. #172
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 04 January 2017

    03 January 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance:
    RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre:

    Calculating the deadline to submit a Judicial Review. The UK BA’s relevant policy suggest that :
    “The team handling the JR must calculate the 3 month time limit for applying for JR from the date on which the applicant was served with the administrative review decision, not the date of the original decision on the application. Administrative review decisions are served in accordance with appendix SN of the Immigration Rules”.

    Major UK immigration related case-law, summer-autumn-winter 2016

    Two new deportation cases from the Supreme Court: best interests plus the Immigration Rules and Article 8

    Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 59, [2016] All ER (D) 93 (Nov) (16 November 2016)

    In this deportation appeal, the Appellant had two British children with whom he had not had direct contact for a significant length of time. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed his appeal finding that the children had no relationship with the Appellant. At paragraph 40 Lord Kerr said that where a decision is taken about the deportation of a foreign criminal who has children residing in the UK, separate consideration of their best interests is required, especially if they do not converge with those of the parent to be deported and particularly in the case of a child with dual ethnic background. At paragraph 47 Lady Hale added, ‘it is quite correct to say that children must be recognised as rights-holders in their own right and not just as adjuncts to other people’s rights. But that does not mean that their rights are inevitably a passport to another person’s rights.’

    Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60, [2016] All ER (D) 90 (Nov) (16 November 2016)

    The Appellant was a failed Iraqi asylum seeker with Class A drug convictions. He was in a long-term relationship with his British fiancée and had two children with whom he had no contact. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to remit the appeal to the Upper Tribunal, however Lord Kerr dissented. The judgments analyse the interaction between the deportation rules and the appellate body considering Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Appellate decision making in Article 8 cases is governed by Huang [2007] UKHL 11, [2007] 4 All ER 15 and the structured approach. The European Court of Human Rights has given guidance on the relevant factors to take into account (Boultif v Switzerland [2001] ECHR 54273/00, Maslov v Austria [2008] ECHR 1638/03, Jeunesse v Netherlands [2014] ECHR 12738/10). he appellate body’s decision making process is not governed by the Immigration Rules, but should nevertheless involve their consideration. The appellate body must make its own assessment of the proportionality of deportation, on the basis of its own consideration of the factors relevant to the particular case, and application of the relevant law. But in doing so, it must not disregard the decision under appeal. Where the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) has adopted a policy in relation to the assessment of proportionality, set out in the Rules and endorsed by Parliament, the appellate body should give considerable weight to that policy. Lord Wilson endorsed the balance sheet approach to decision making. Dissenting Lord Kerr concluded that the application of the Rules, and their prescription of the weight to be given to the public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals, were not compatible with the balancing exercise that had to be undertaken in considering the relevant factors arising under Article 8 in a particular case

    Sheidu (Further submissions; appealable decision) [2016] UKUT 412 (IAC) (7 September 2016)

    A Vice-Presidential panel of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) found that if the SSHD makes a decision that is one of those specified in Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 82(1), it carries a right of appeal even if the intention was not to treat the submissions as a fresh claim. Whilst it is not the job of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to determine if further submissions amount to a fresh claim (R (Waqar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] KUT 169 (IAC), [2015] All ER (D) 78 (Apr) (permission to appeal to Court of Appeal refused by Beatson LJ on 17 November 2015), R (Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2016] UKUT 133 (IAC), R (MG) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2016] IJR UKUT 283 (IAC), [2016] All ER (D) 108 (Jun) and R (Amin Sharif Hussein) v First-tier Tribunal and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 409 (IAC)) it is the job of the FTT to determine if a decision is one which falls within NIAA 2002, s 82. The UT found that the decision
    in the present case was a refusal of a human rights claim and therefore carried a right of appeal.

    Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC) (19 August 2016)

    Dropping a jurisprudential bomb shell, a Vice-Presidential panel of the UT found that there is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the SSHD not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member as it did not concern a person’s entitlement to be issued with a Residence Card. The SSHD argued in this appeal that there was a right of appeal, however, following the appeal she has incorporated the decision in Sala in the new Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 SI 2016/1052.

    ETS: the latest developments

    The SSHD is now relying on more evidence, both general and specific in ETS/TOEIC cases. This was demonstrated in the latest reported ETS decision

    MA (ETS – TOEIC testing) [2016] UKUT 450 (IAC) (16 September 2016) in which the President allowed the SSHD’s appeal finding that the Appellant’s claims were
    demonstrably false. The question of whether a person engaged in fraud in procuring a TOEIC English language proficiency qualification will invariably be intrinsically fact sensitive. The SSHD then decided to withdraw her appeal before the Court of Appeal in Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1167, [2016] All ER (D) 147 (Nov) (25 October 2016) . Beatson LJ gave a judgment which sets out at paragraphs 29-35 how the different categories of cases in the appeal system will be dealt with.

    Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2002, s 117B(6) & reasonableness R (on the application of MA (Pakistan)) and others v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others [2016] EWCA Civ 705, [2016] All ER (D) 52 (Jul) (07 July 2016)

    Elias LJ confirms that section 117B(6) is a self-contained provision which, if satisfied, would result in Article 8 being infringed. In the assessment of reasonableness, Elias LJ favoured the argument of the appellants—that the focus was solely upon the child. However following MM (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 450, Elias LJ held that reasonableness included a consideration of the parents and their immigration history. This case concerned ‘7-year’ children and not British children. The SSHD still accepts (in extant policy documents) that it would be unreasonable for British children to leave the EU.

    Sponsor licence cases

    R (on the application of Raj and Knoll Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 770, [2016] All ER (D) 90 (Jul), (19 July 2016)

    The Court of Appeal comprehensively rejects this appeal in a judicial review hallenge to the revocation of a Tier 2 sponsor licence concerning nursing homes. The Court finds that it is not necessary to decide if the SSHD can operate a ‘light trigger’ approach to revocation and whether the Court should adopt a heightened standard of review as the SSHD did not act on suspicion alone and the Appellant was clearly in breach. The Court however do sound two notes of caution at paragraph 31, with reference to R (Westech College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1484 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 69 (Jun), stressing that the SSHD must comply with her public law duties and that Tier 2 is not identical with Tier 4. Counsel for the SSHD submitted that there may be reasons in a Tier 4 case why the SSHD can act on suspicion alone

    Steps to avoid persecution

    Secretary of State for the Home Department v MSM (Somalia) [2016] EWCA Civ 715, [2016] All ER (D) 74 (Jul) (12 July 2016)

    The Court of Appeal dismisses the SSHD’s appeal and makes obiter comments rejecting the SSHD’s argument that in imputed political opinion cases the court should consider the reasonableness of taking steps to avoid persecution. See paragraph 37 for a useful summary. This case hopefully sounds the death knell for discretion arguments in protection claims. Dublin III

    Secretary of State for the Home Department v ZAT and others (United National High Commissioner for Refugees and AIRE Centre, intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 810, [2016] All ER (D) 22 (Aug) (02 August 2016)

    The Court of Appeal allowed the SSHD’s appeal against the decision of the UT President in the Calais children case, finding that the UT applied the wrong test in setting too low a hurdle for permitting the Dublin III process to be displaced by Article 8 considerations. However by the time of the appeal two of the four children had been granted refugee status and the SSHD accepted that the UK is the correct place for the asylum claims to be determined.

    Clearly unfounded certificates

    R (on the application of FR (Albania) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605, [2016] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) (23 June 2016)

    In this Albanian blood feud case the Court of Appeal gave comprehensive guidance on the correct approach to certification of claims as ‘clearly unfounded’ under NIAA 2002, s 94. Beatson LJ states at paragraph 62, ‘the intensity of review in a certification case is at the more and possibly most intensive end of the spectrum to which I have referred at [48] above, but the jurisdiction remains a supervisory and reviewing one’. Davis LJ emphasised at paragraph 126 the importance of the two- stage reasoning process in play and avoiding the impermissible approach of, ‘because I have rejected the asylum claim therefore I certify as clearly unfounded’.

  3. #173
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 11 January 2017

    11 January 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance:
    RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre:

    Updated UK BA Guidance

    • Points-based system: Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent): - This version explains the new online application process introduced on 19 December 2016

    • Guidance on application for UK visa under Tier 5 (Temporary Worker):

    • Guidance for dependants of UK visa applicants (Tiers 1, 2, 4, 5): members of points-based system migrants: - Updated to allow sponsors to underwrite maintenance for Dependants of Tier 5 migrantsPoints-based system: Tier 5 (Temporary Worker): - This guidance has been changed to reflect Immigration Rules changes made in November 2016

    • Points-based system: Tier 2:

    • Visitor guidance update:

    • Criminal records checks for overseas applicants (20th December 2016): Criminal records checks for overseas applicants (20th December 2016) - Who can apply, how to apply and contact details for criminal record checks overseas

    • Returns preparation:

    • PBS Dependents’ certain absences from the UK may lead to the PBS dependents’ losing the right to apply for Settlement in line with the recent Statement of changes: : “In paragraph 319E(d)(ii) insert after (c):
    “In this sub-paragraph “continuous” means an unbroken period and for this purpose a period shall not be considered to have been broken in any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 245AAA(a)(i) to (iii).”.”

    • Entry clearance applications as a partner under Appendix FM – acceptable English language tests. See: clarified that the applicant needs a test from the list in Table 1, and it only mentions IELTS Life Skills and IELTS for UKVI


    • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman upholds three in four complaints about the Home Office:

    • The President of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has found that the Home Office abused its power in forcing a college to expel a student and deliberately depriving him of a statutory right of appeal:

    Recent case-law:

    • R (on the application of Mohibullah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (TOEIC – ETS – judicial review principles) [2016] UKUT 00561 (IAC)

    Tribunals Service link: https://tribunalsdecisions.service.g.../2016-ukut-261

    (i) Where there is a multiplicity of decision making mechanisms, some generating a right of appeal and others not, there is a public law duty on the decision maker to be aware of the options and to take same into account when opting for a particular mechanism.
    (ii) Where a Tier 4 Student is considered to have made false representations, thereby being liable to discretionary curtailment of leave and has been withdrawn from a course, thereby being liable to mandatory curtailment action there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consider both of the corresponding sections in the “Curtailment of Leave” policy guidance.
    (iii) A failure to give effect to policy guidance without justification is in breach of the Lumba principle and renders the ensuing decision vulnerable to being quashed.
    (iv) Where a curtailment of leave decision is underpinned by the Secretary of State’s decision that leave to remain had been procured by deception, the appropriate standard of review is the Wednesbury principle rather than proof of the precedent fact of deception.
    (v) A decision which has a conspicuously unfair impact on the subject may qualify for condemnation as unreasonable, or irrational, in contravention of the Wednesbury principle.
    (vi) The student’s knowledge of an allegation by ETS that he has procured his TOEIC certificate by deception will normally suffice to convey the gist of the case against him, thereby rendering the Secretary of State’s decision making process (in this respect) procedurally fair.

  4. #174
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 16 January 2017

    16 January 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    Помщь юриста:

    Recent case-law

    Shabir Ahmed and others (sanctions for non–compliance) [2016] UKUT 00562 (IAC): https://tribunalsdecisions.service.g.../2016-ukut-562

    Head note

    Persistent and egregious non-compliance with Upper Tribunal orders, directions and rules will attract appropriate sanctions.

    Case note

    In a strongly worded judgment by McCloskey, J (President) and Holmes, J (Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge), the Upper Tribunal criticises the conduct of the parties in the four cases before it and in other recent cases, including the three recent ‘ETS’ cases.

    Conduct criticised in the present cases included failure to comply with directions or seek clarification of these, failure to seek a case management review hearing if appropriate, repeated unmeritorious requests to adjourn the hearing, failure to provide a hearing bundle or skeleton argument. The Tribunal held:
    To describe this state of affairs as grossly unsatisfactory is an acute understatement. The Upper Tribunal has been treated with sustained and marked disrespect. The conduct of these appeals has been cavalier and unprofessional. The rule of law has been weakened in consequence. (§7)
    The Upper Tribunal gave a warning of how it would treat misconduct in the future:

    “The Upper Tribunal will, henceforth, have recourse to the full panoply of sanctions at its disposal. These include in particular wasted costs orders. There will also be reporting of rulings of this kind. Furthermore, consideration will be given to the invocation of the Upper Tribunal’s contempt powers, together with referrals to professional bodies. (§10)”.

    Naturalization applications, the point on the hospital orders. It is worth noting that the hospital orders will remain on the applicant’s criminal record. The applicant’s GP should know whether and when the patient was ‘conditionally’ or ‘absolutely’ discharged. See paragraph 3.7 of the Good Character requirement as to the impact of hospital orders.

    PBS Maintenance. Para 1A(h) of Appendix C explains that:

    “(h) the end date of the 90-day and 28-day periods referred to in (b) and (c) above will be taken as the date of the closing balance on the most recent of the specified documents (where specified documents from two or more accounts are submitted, this will be the end date for the account that most favours the applicant), and must be no earlier than 31 days before the date of application”.

    That means that the so-called “90 day period” is counted backwards from the date of the closing balance, not forward from the applicant’s date of choice. That should be taking into consideration when submitting the bank statements with the PBS applications.

    Updated Home Office guidance on permission to work and volunteer for asylum seekers:

    Changes since the last version of the guidance:

    - updated to include reference to criminality and delay when considering permission to work applications
    - improved guidance on applying for permission to work to provide clarity for claimants on what is expected
    - updated information about the difference between working for a voluntary organisation and volunteering to make clearer that asylum seekers are able to volunteer
    - new guidance template applied, and section and paragraph numbering removed in line with guidance requirements

    Total of 31 illegal immigrants removed from UK as a result of Right to Rent:

  5. #175
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 18 January 2017

    18 January 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance:
    RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre:

    Updated UK Visas and Immigration Guidance: Transfer of conditions, Version 12.0 (16 January 2016):

    UK Visas and Immigration guidance on how staff process transfer of condition applications for applicants who have limited leave endorsed in a passport that is lost, stolen, damaged or due to expire and need to transfer their visa to a biometric residence permit (BRP).

    Changes from last version of this guidance: Minor housekeeping changes and placing the guidance into the new format

    Recent case-law:

    Chin and Another (former BOC/Malaysian national – deportation) [2017] UKUT 00015 (IAC)

    Tribunals Service link: https://tribunalsdecisions.service.g...c/2017-ukut-15

    The deportation of a former Malaysian national and former BOC is liable to be deemed unlawful where relevant Government Policies relating to inter-state arrangements with Malaysia have not been taken into account or given effect.

    VA (Solicitor’s non-compliance: counsel’s duties) Sri Lanka [2017] UKUT 00012 (IAC)

    Tribunals Service link: https://tribunalsdecisions.service.g...c/2017-ukut-12

    (i) Counsel’s duty is owed to the client. It does not extend to defending non-compliant instructing solicitors.
    (ii) It is for non-compliant instructing solicitors to defend themselves by proactively arranging their attendance before the tribunal in appropriate circumstances.

  6. #176
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 20 January 2017

    20 January 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance:
    RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre:

    Tier 5 Youth Mobility (Working Holiday Maker) Visa Processing Change (19 January 2017)

    “With immediate effect, Youth Mobility visas can now be post-dated by a maximum of 6 months from the application date (the date the fee is paid). Please let your clients know. The website has already been updated. This only applies to the Youth Mobility Scheme. All other categories can only be post-dated up to a maximum of 3 months from the application date.”

    Reent case-law

    Paposhvili v Belgium, App. No. 41738/10, European Court of Human Rights

    In Paposhvili v Belgium, App. No. 41738/10, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that

    “the application of Article 3 of the Convention only in cases where the person facing expulsion is close to death, which has been its practice since the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom, has deprived aliens who are seriously ill, but whose condition is less critical, of the benefit of that provision.” (paragraph 181)
    The court proceeds to ‘clarify’ (using the word in the Home Office’s sense of ‘change’) its approach. The court holds that the reference in in N. v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 26565/05; judgment of the Grand Chamber of 28 May 2008) to “other very exceptional cases” which may raise an issue under Article 3 should be understood to refer to “situations involving the removal of a seriously ill person in which substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she, although not at imminent risk of dying, would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy”.

    At issue is the negative obligation not to expose persons to a risk of ill‑treatment proscribed by Article 3, comparing their health prior to removal and subsequent to any transfer. The court reiterates that the benchmark is not the health care system in the returning State. Instead the focus is on the individual and their suffering. That the country to which the person is to be returned is a party to the Convention is not decisive of the matter (citing M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Appl. no. 30696/09, judgment of of 21 January 2001 and Tarakhel v Switzerland, 29217/12 , judgment of 4 November 2014. The court also found that removal would violate Article 8.

    The case has the potential to put an end to the long line of injustice and suffering that has resulted from the N judgment and those with clients with terminal or chronic illnesses should consider making fresh representations and amending pleadings in the light of it.

    Supreme Court on 3C leave and invalid applications

    In R (Mirza, Iqbal & Ehsan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 63 (14 December 2016), the UK Supreme Court has ruled that leave is not extended under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 where it later turns out that the application made for further leave to enter or remain was invalid. This means that a person whose application to extend their leave turns out to be invalid after their leave has expired does not benefit from 3C leave, including during the period before the mistake is discovered.

    The Supreme Court based its findings on the application of ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and considered that the drafters of the relevant legislation could be assumed to have taken its practical implications into account. However, the Court was critical of the Home Office for not having addressed the difficulties caused by the lack of flexibility.

  7. #177
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate

    <ВИР> UK&EEA Immigration Law Digest 24 January 2017

    24 January 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre

    ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance:
    RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre:

    · Brexit Update: The UK Prime Minister, Theresa May must seek the UK parliament's approval to trigger the Article 50 following the UK Supreme Court's Judgement today, on the 24th January 2017:

    - Lords Library Note on 'Leaving the European Union: The Single Market, the Rights of EU Citizens in the UK and the UK’s Future Economic Requirements', LLN 2017/006, 20 January 2017 http://researchbriefings.parliament..../LLN-2017-0006

    - Changes to process for UK settlement visa applicants in Australia

    UK Visas & Immigration is changing the way UK settlement visa applicants in Australia submit their supporting documents. From 30 January, 2017, all supporting documents should be sent to the UK address below by the sponsor or applicant: PO Box 5852, Sheffield, S11 0FX, United Kingdom

    Applicants can also choose a new service in which their documents will be scanned and submitted by our commercial partner, VFS Global, for an additional fee. The UK BA aims to make a decision on a settlement visa in 60 working days. If you have opted for our Settlement Priority Visa Service, your application will be put at the front of the queue and the decision expedited. Further guidance on the new process will be posted on our website and the VFS Global website in the coming days.

    · Request for Tier 2 unrestricted CoS allocation

    From th UK BA: "Due to the high demand for this service it is not always possible to get through to the payment line and we are aware of Customers needing to make multiple attempts.

    Unfortunately, at present the only way to obtain the Priority service is by phone, and you will need to persist with the helpline.

    UKVI are constantly looking at way to improve the services we offer and your feedback is important to us. It has been shared with the project team who are reviewing the capacity of the service and will help inform future decisions in relation to this service.

    There are 20 slots available each working day, these are allocated on a first come first served basis. The telephone line opens at 9am and the first 20 people to get through and pay the fee are allocated slots, the system does not have a queuing facility and callers will receive a message when the line is engaged.

    Once all slots are allocated the telephone message will be updated to advise callers of this. We will on occasions answer the telephone after all slots are allocated, this is to help us gather information on demand to help inform any future decisions on increasing the number of slots available.".

    Recent case-law:

    High Court declares Detained Fast Track Appeals Procedure Rules 2005 unlawful: R (TN (Vietnam) & US (Pakistan)) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 59 (Admin), 20 January 2017

    BAILII case link:

    The High Court has made a declaration that the Detained Fast Track Appeals Procedure Rules in force between 2005 and 2014 were unlawful.

    In R (TN (Vietnam) & US (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2017] EWHC 59 (Admin) (20 January 2017), the High Court has held that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005, SI 2005/560, which were in force until October 2014, were unlawful. The later fast track appeals procedure rules, in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 SI 2014/2604, in force from October 2014 were found unlawful in an earlier challenge brought by Detention Action.

    The judgment then considers how decisions made on cases under the fast track procedure rules in force should be dealt with.

Страница 18 из 18 ПерваяПервая ... 8161718

Социальные закладки

Социальные закладки

Ваши права

  • Вы не можете создавать новые темы
  • Вы не можете отвечать в темах
  • Вы не можете прикреплять вложения
  • Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения