С Новым Годом и Рождеством!

UK & EEA Immigration Lawyer & Advocate

Страница 37 из 37 ПерваяПервая ... 27353637
Показано с 361 по 369 из 369

Тема: Новости UK & EEA Immigration Law от Legal Centre, 07791145923

  1. #361
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    27 November 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> A respondent cannot withdraw an appeal, confirms the Upper Tribunal: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/357.html

    “Be careful what you wish for!”, could be the headline for the case of Ahmed (rule 18; PTA; Family Court materials) Pakistan [2019] UKUT 357 (IAC).

    Haseeb Ahmed, a Pakistani citizen, was initially refused an application for leave to remain by the Secretary of State. He won his appeal at the First-tier Tribunal, but the Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Shortly before the date of the appeal hearing, Mr Ahmed’s solicitors wrote to the tribunal asking to withdraw the appeal, so that they could submit a new application for leave to remain for their client.

    This mistake could have been made by many, but they simply had no appeal to withdraw, as the Secretary of State was the party who appealed.

    Instead, the Upper Tribunal treated the request as meaning that Mr Ahmed was no longer going to defend his case and the Secretary of State’s case was unopposed. It then proceeded to rule in the Secretary of State’s favour, finding that the initial refusal of Mr Ahmed’s application for leave to remain was correct. Mr Ahmed was back to square one, but now with two negative decisions against him!

    Thankfully in this case, Mr Ahmed went on to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which sent the decision back to the Upper Tribunal. This time, the Upper Tribunal ruled in Mr Ahmed’s favour, finding that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision had been correct. So things could have gone even worse for poor Mr Ahmed…

    A second procedural issue which arose in this case was about appeal deadlines. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal well out of time. This didn’t seem to have been picked up by anyone until the second Upper Tribunal hearing, when Mr Ahmed’s legal representatives tried to argue that the Secretary of State’s application could not be admitted on that basis.

    The Upper Tribunal found, rather ironically, that it was too late to raise this issue. When a party wants to raise the issue of lateness, they should do it before the Upper Tribunal makes a substantive decision on whether or not the First-tier Tribunal erred in law.

    Last but not least, the tribunal reminds us again of the danger of submitting family court documents without permission, as Rachel explained in detail in her recent post on the issue. In this case, the Upper Tribunal picked up that Mr Ahmed’s legal representatives did not have permission to disclose the documents and wrote to the Designated Family Judge to bring the matter to their attention. Mr Ahmed’s lawyers just need to hope they won’t be found in contempt of the Family Court.

    The official headnote:

    “(1) Where P is the respondent to the Secretary of State’s appeal in the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow P’s appeal, P cannot give notice under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 so as to withdraw his appeal, since P has no appeal in the Upper Tribunal. In such a situation, the giving of notice under rule 17 to withdraw P’s case will, if the Upper Tribunal gives consent, have the effect of leaving the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal unopposed and therefore may well lead to a reasoned decision from the Upper Tribunal, setting aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.

    (2) If an application by a party for permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal has been granted by that Tribunal, but the application was made late and time was not extended by the granting judge, the other party may raise the timeliness issue before the Upper Tribunal, as described in Samir (FtT permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 3 (IAC), provided the Upper Tribunal has not reached a substantive decision. The issue may not, however, be raised after the Upper Tribunal has reached such a decision. Rule 6 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 means that the grant of permission by the First-tier Tribunal is to be treated as valid, notwithstanding the procedural irregularity, with the result that the ensuing decision of the Upper Tribunal is, likewise, valid.

    (3) If a party intends to rely before the Tribunal on material emanating from proceedings in the Family Court, that party must ensure that the material can be disclosed, without any breach of restrictions on the disclosure of such material. Failure to do so may amount to contempt of the Family Court. Judges in the Immigration and Asylum jurisdiction must be alert to this issue.”

  2. #362
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    28 November 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> Child abuse victim given deportation reprieve: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/2027.html

    The Court of Appeal has given judgment in CI (Nigeria) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 2027, providing further guidance on the law relating to the deportation of foreign criminals, and in particular on the meaning in section 117C(4) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 of “lawful residence”, “social and cultural integration”, and “very significant obstacles” to integration.

    >>> Supreme Court finds detention of asylum seekers unlawful: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0197.html

    The Supreme Court has confirmed in the case of Hemmati v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56 that the detention of asylum seekers for their removal to other EU states under the Dublin Regulation was unlawful between 1 January 2014 and 15 March 2017, when new regulations were belatedly adopted. There are no publicly available statistics on how many asylum seekers are detained for removal under the Dublin system, but we do know that around 10,000 “take back” requests were sent by the UK to other EU states during that time frame.

    When the EU legislated specifically to protect those being transferred between member states under a new Dublin Regulation, and that regulation came into force on 1 January 2014, the UK failed to implement any new or specific protections. The Supreme Court finds that existing UK law was insufficient, making the detention of the claimants and all other Dublin detainees unlawful.

  3. #363
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929

    Переход на EU Pre-Settled Status для родителей с гостевой визой

    Переход на EU Pre-Settled Status для родителей с гостевой визой

    На основании существующего Appendix EU в данный период времени вероятно осуществить изменение иммиграционного статуса для родителей, имеющих британские гостевые визы, чьи дети являются гражданами EU или чьи дети (не граждане EU) являются супругами граждан EU.

    Например, если Вы из России, и Вы находитесь в браке с гражданином EU, Вы живете в Великобритании и у Вас сейчас в гостях родители из России, то Ваши родители потенциально могли бы остаться в Великобритании и получить EU Pre-Settled Status.

    Каждая дело рассматривается индивидуально во время предварительной консультации, на которую Вы можете записаться по этой ссылке: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html

  4. #364
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    29 November 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> Innovator visa continues to “impress” with a whopping 14 applications in six months (12 approved): https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...ation-datasets

    The Innovator visa, launched in March 2019 to “enhance the UK’s offer to overseas entrepreneurial talent“, has attracted a grand total of 14 applications in its first six months of operation. That compares to 997 applications for its predecessor visa, Tier 1 (Entrepreneur), over the same period last year.

    Figures published by the Home Office today show that there were ten applications for an Innovator visa between June and September 2019. That is a modest improvement on the just 4 applications recorded in April-June 2019.
    Statistically, only 12 out of those 14 applicants have now been approved. Those who do meet the criteria seem fairly likely to be waved through. The problem is that the visa is extremely unappealing to the type of experienced entrepreneurs it is pitched at, for reasons repeatedly stated by the Legal Centre (www.legalcentre.org) in many of their regular online updates.

  5. #365
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    02 December 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> Appeal overturned after bus stop rant by court interprete: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/352.html
    An asylum appeal by an Eritrean woman, initially rejected by an immigration judge, has been overturned by the Upper Tribunal after it emerged the court interpreter embarked on a political rant to the woman’s barrister at the bus stop outside court afterwards.

  6. #366
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    04 December 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> Another failed challenge to the good character citizenship requirement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/2024.html

    R (Al-Enein) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 2024 is another valiant but failed attempt to challenge the Home Office’s good character policy in relation to applications for British citizenship.

    The issue in this case was whether the policy of looking back at a person’s immigration status in the decade prior to the application was lawful. Mr Al-Enein had been in the UK without valid leave between 20 November 2007 and 27 January 2010, when he was removed to Lebanon. He returned to the UK lawfully in 2012 as the fiancé of a British citizen and subsequently progressed to indefinite leave to remain. He applied for naturalisation in June 2015, but was refused for failing to meet the good character requirement due to non-compliance with UK immigration laws in the decade prior to application.

    NB Should Mr Al-Enein approach the Legal Centre (www.legalcentre.org) before his application for Naturalization, he would have been warned about the consequences of applying at that stage and the imminent possibility of a refusal.

    The particular challenge attempted here was to argue that the British Nationality Act 1981 already sets out a specific time period over which an applicant for naturalisation must have been resident in the UK and not in breach of the immigration laws. That period is three years for spouses/civil partners of British citizens, or five years for everyone else. This is what Parliament decided in enacting the legislation. But then the Secretary of State, using his statutory discretion to determine whether or not a person is of good character, is actually expanding that time period by a further seven or five years depending on the category. Doing so, it was argued, is ultra vires.

    It seems fundamentally unfair that Parliament, after appropriate debate and scrutiny, specifies a required period of immigration compliance for would-be citizens, only for the Home Office to effectively lengthen it. One would think that if Parliament had intended an examination of a person’s immigration status over a longer period, Parliament would have passed legislation to that effect. But the Court of Appeal, like the Scottish courts, was having none of it:

    “Although those requirements laid down by Parliament are statutory minimum requirements, there is no reason in law why the Secretary of State cannot impose an additional or extended requirement relating to breach of immigration laws as properly being a matter which is relevant to the more general question of good character… that requires an assessment or evaluation by the Secretary of State of all the relevant circumstances going to that issue.”

    In other words, since Parliament has required the Secretary of State to determine whether a citizenship applicant is of good character without specifying how this is to be done, the Secretary of State can apply whatever policy he or she likes.

  7. #367
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    05 December 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> Administrative review under the EU Settlement Scheme: the 90% decision overturned success rate

    Statistics – see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...coming-1450411 on administrative reviews of Settlement Scheme decisions show that 89.5% of initial decisions reviewed were overturned.

    As of 12 September 2019, the Home Office had received 451 administrative review requests for Settlement Scheme decisions. More recent figures for administrative reviews have been requested but have been refused by the Home Office.

    Half of the refusals could have been due to the case worker’s error…

    As always, it is best to have at least a one-off consultation with our exerts from the Legal Centre (https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html) in order to get a clear idea as to who to apply for the EU Settled or EU Pr-settled scheme.

    Should you wish to be assisted further, the Legal Centre offers a cost effective package to assist migrant in order to get their EU Settled or EU Pre-settled status: https://legalcentre.org/EU-settled-a...nt-scheme.html

  8. #368
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    06 December 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> Update on registration applications under s4C BNA 1981

    It may assist readers to know that the Home Office will grant registration as British without a citizenship ceremony under the relatively new provision to allow registration as British under s4C where the applicant has a criminal record (following the coming into force on 25 July 2019 of the BNA 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019 which removes the usual good character requirement).

    For example, by the time the applicant’s application was approved the applicant was back in prison on a long-term basis and was thus not able to attend a citizenship ceremony. It is possible to make representations to the Home Office that when the guidance about when to waive the requirement to attend a citizenship ceremony was drafted, the possibility of a candidate being in custody had not been contemplated, as all adult applications were subject to a good character requirement. The Home Office then simply sent a registration certificate by post.

    >>> Mentally ill man detained for 838 days awarded £100,000 compensation: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.u...ntally-ill-man

    A mentally ill Iranian man who was kept in immigration detention for 838 days in total has secured £100,000 in compensation from the Home Office. The test case concerning a man known as AKE was settled in the High Court recently.

    The settlement does mean the legal issues in the case will not now be thrashed out in court. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that he immigration detention system discriminates against migrants with mental health conditions, in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

    >>> Risk of trauma for children not enough to prevent deportation: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/2051.html

    “…This is not a comfortable interpretation to apply. But that is what Parliament has decided…”

    So held Lord Justice Baker, giving judgment in SSHD v KF (Nigeria) [2019] EWCA Civ 2051, and yet another deportation case in the Court of Appeal.

    The case considered the meaning of “unduly harsh” in family separation cases, and endorses the line taken in SSHD v PG (Jamaica) [2019] EWCA Civ 1213 following the Supreme Court case of KO (Nigeria) v SSHD [2018] UKSC 53.
    KF and his son.

    In appealing against a 2014 deportation order following a three-year prison sentence for burglary and two robberies, KF relied on his relationship with family members in the UK, and in particular with his British son. He argued that it would be “unduly harsh” on his son for him to be deported (see Exception 2 in section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002).

    The First-tier Tribunal agreed, and this finding was upheld by the Upper Tribunal. In its assessment of the impact of KF’s deportation on his son the First-tier Tribunal had held:
    “For [KF’s son], the adverse consequences remaining in the UK are likely to be that he would be deprived of a proper relationship with his father. I do not accept that maintaining a relationship, while living on different continents, via modern means of communication is in any way a substitute for growing up with a parent. [KF’s] son is very young. This is the time when he would normally be bonding with his father. I think I am entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that being deprived of a parent is something a child is likely to find traumatic and that will potentially have long-lasting adverse consequences for that child. I take into account that in this case [KF’s] son has limited knowledge of his father and has the benefit of a supportive extended family. However in my view that is no substitute for the emotional and developmental benefits for a 3 year old child that are associated with being brought up by both parents during its formative years. These benefits have been recognised by the courts on numerous occasions and the consequences of losing them should not be minimised.”

    In November 2017, the Secretary of State applied out of time for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (made in August 2017). This was granted a year later following the judgment in KO (Nigeria).

    Risk of trauma? No worries!

    The Court of Appeal did not dispute the facts of the case. It described the conclusions relating to the importance of being brought up by both parents as “indisputable”. But:

    “…those benefits are enjoyed by all three-year-old children in the care of both parents. The judge observed that it was a “fact that being deprived of a parent is something a child is likely to find traumatic and that will potentially have long-lasting adverse consequences for that child” and that he was entitled to take judicial notice of that fact. But the “fact” of which he was taking “judicial notice” is likely to arise in every case where a child is deprived of a parent. All children should, where possible, be brought up with a close relationship with both parents. All children deprived of a parent’s company during their formative years will be at risk of suffering harm. Given the changes to the law introduced by the amendments to [the] 2002 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it is necessary to look for consequences characterised by a degree of harshness over and beyond what every child would experience in such circumstances.”

    The court reinforced the finding in PG (Jamaica) that there must be something in the factual matrix of a case which distinguishes it from other cases where a family is separated. It went on to allow the appeal and restore the original deportation order.

    It’s what the people want

    As well as continuing a trend in which the Court of Appeal remakes deportation appeal decisions rather than remitting them to the tribunal (and here for example, not considering at all whether “very compelling circumstances” might prevent deportation under section 117C(6), a step required where neither of the exceptions apply), this decision further embeds the problematic interpretation of the “unduly harsh” test as explored in our write-up of PG (Jamaica).

    In reality, then, notwithstanding the real and accepted prospect of trauma and long-lasting adverse consequences for the children of deported parents, foreign national offenders sentenced to longer than 12 months facing deportation will need to show more than this to meet the test.

    It is unsurprising that this causes the judges deciding these cases some discomfort.

  9. #369
    Давно Тут! Аватар для Advocate
    Регистрация
    14.02.2011
    Адрес
    UK
    Сообщений
    2,929
    09 December 2019 – 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)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

    >>> General grounds for refusal: false representation: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...representation

    This guidance is supplementary guidance relating to refusals on grounds of false representation under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules (the general grounds for refusal or GGfR) and the parallel provisions in Appendix Armed Forces, Appendix FM and Appendix V.

    >>> UKVI update: Applying for a UK visa: approved English language tests: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...I0MH37VOuJb-kj

    Change made:

    List of approved tests and providers from 7 November 2019 replaced with current list from 5 December 2019

Страница 37 из 37 ПерваяПервая ... 27353637

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
  •