Перейти к содержанию
Форум «Чемодан» — путешествия, иммиграция, работа за рубежом

British Lawyer

Чемодан
  • Публикаций

    3349
  • Зарегистрирован

  • Посещение

  • Победитель дней

    6

British Lawyer стал победителем дня 26 июля

British Lawyer имел наиболее популярный контент!

Репутация

36 Очень хороший

10 Подписчиков

Информация о British Lawyer

  • Звание
    Адвокат и модератор. Mob/Viber/WhatsApp: +44(0)77 911 45 923
  • День рождения 01/12/1975

Старые поля

  • Настоящее имя
    Anton Koval

Контакты

  • Сайт
    http://www.legalcentre.org
  • ICQ
    0
  • Skype
    immigration_lawyer

Информация

  • Пол
    Мужчина
  • Город
    UK
  • Интересы
    Фитнесс, КВ радиоспорт

Посетители профиля

7890 просмотров профиля
  1. Пожалуйста. Рад был Вам помочь.
  2. 15 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) >>> Complete withdrawal of asylum support breaches EU law: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=220532&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1470078 The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it is unlawful to completely withdraw all housing and financial support from an asylum seeker, even if they have breached the rules of an accommodation centre. In Case C-233/18 Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers, the court sharply rebuked Belgium for imposing a total withdrawal of support on a child asylum seeker for failing to comply with the rules. The case concerned an unaccompanied child from Afghanistan who sought asylum in Belgium. He was housed at the Broechem reception centre, where he became involved in a brawl. The child was arrested by the police but released the following day with no further action. Nevertheless, the director of the Broechem reception centre imposed a 15-day exclusion from the centre as a punishment. During this time the child spent several nights sleeping in public parks in Brussels as well as finding friends to stay with. EU law provides for sanctions to be imposed on asylum seekers who break the rules at a reception centre. The Reception Conditions Directive states: “Member States may determine sanctions applicable to serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as to seriously violent behaviour.” The court ruled that reduction or withdrawal of housing and other support from an asylum seeker might be an appropriate sanction within the meaning of the rule, even though it is not explicitly mentioned: “it is appropriate to note, first, that a measure for reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions in respect of an applicant on account of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres or seriously violent behaviour constitutes, in the light of the aim and the detrimental consequences thereof for the applicant, a ‘sanction’ in the ordinary meaning of that word and, secondly, that that provision is included in Chapter III of the directive, which is dedicated to the reduction and withdrawal of such conditions. It follows that the sanctions envisaged in the directive may, in principle, concern material reception conditions.” But the court clarified that any sanction imposed must be proportionate and not result in a violation of the asylum seeker’s dignity: “… any sanction within the meaning of Article 20(4) thereof must be objective, impartial, reasoned and proportionate to the particular situation of the applicant and must, under all circumstances, ensure access to health care and a dignified standard of living for the applicant.” The total withdrawal of material support, as was imposed by the Belgian authorities in this case, did not comply with EU law because it necessarily violated the child’s dignity: “A sanction that is imposed exclusively on the basis of one of the reasons mentioned in Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33 and consists in the withdrawal, even if only a temporary one, of the full set of material reception conditions or of material reception conditions relating to housing, food or clothing would be irreconcilable with the requirement, arising from the third sentence of Article 20(5) of the directive, to ensure a dignified standard of living for the applicant, since it would preclude the applicant from being allowed to meet his or her most basic needs such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph.” Having decided the case against the Belgian government, the court went on to emphasise the importance of taking into account both the vulnerability of an unaccompanied child asylum seeker and their best interests: “Moreover, according to Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/33 the best interests of the child are a primary consideration for Member States when implementing the provisions of the directive that involve minors.” This case is a great result and vindication for the child’s lawyers, although perhaps little consolation for the child that it has taken three years for a court to rule that it was unlawful to make him street homeless. The Court of Justice relies heavily on national courts to ensure that EU law is respected and it is disappointing that the Belgian court that originally considered the matter was not prepared to find that imposing such a severe sanction on a child was disproportionate.
  3. Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила ПМЖ/ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) как жена британского гражданина. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org
  4. 14 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) >>> Court of Appeal revisits human rights in immigration appeals: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1925.html The case of interest is Lal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1925. In this case, Ms Lal had been here as a student since 2011 and her leave was due to expire in 2015. Four months prior, she married Mr Wilmhurst, a British citizen, and applied to stay in the UK under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. Refused over doubt about the marriage The sole reason for refusal was because the Home Office didn’t believe the marriage was genuine and subsisting. We don’t know the reasoning for sure, but one would be astonished if a major part of the reasoning was not the 40-year age difference between the couple and the timing of the marriage. Such refusals are pretty straightforward to nail down, for the most part. At the First-tier Tribunal, three of Mr Wilmhurst’s four children gave evidence. They all agreed that Mr Wilmhurst was indeed in a genuine relationship. It did not help. Insurmountable obstacles to family life Complicating matters, Ms Lal seems to have accepted that that she had to show “insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside the UK”. It looks like she conceded that the requirements of paragraph EX.1 of Appendix FM had to be met despite this never being raised in the refusal letter. The Court of Appeal was quick to raise an eyebrow and had “doubt” whether meeting EX.1 was actually an issue but, as courts do, they still went on to write a treatise about it. Indian climate an insurmountable obstacle? At the First-tier Tribunal, evidence was led that Mr Wilmhurst — who is in his 70s — would not be able to cope with the heat in India and that meant there were insurmountable obstacles. The First-tier Tribunal agreed. The Upper Tribunal did not. Judge Storey in the Upper Tribunal was pretty annoyed at all this. Whilst he agreed the marriage was genuine, he did not think an inability to cope with heat was insurmountable: “…[the] judge was required to undertake… an objective assessment of whether Mr KW could in fact cope with the heat and whether a difficulty of this kind would pose an insurmountable obstacle… Difficulty [in] coping with heat is not in itself a serious hardship in a country where there is air conditioning and available urban environments built to protect people against the heat.” The Court of Appeal allowed permission on the question of whether the “insurmountable obstacles” test was subjective or objective. An objective test, but still a test The court outlined the Supreme Court’s decision in Agyarko v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11. In Agyarko, Lady Hale held that the test was to be applied in a way which was “practical and realistic” and said: “The test cannot… be… subjective… To treat it as such would substantially dilute the intended stringency of the test and give an unfair and perverse advantage to an applicant whose partner is less resolute or committed to their relationship over one whose partner is ready to endure greater hardship to enable them to stay together.” But, the Court of Appeal said, it was not enough to base a conclusion on the Upper Tribunal’s “sweeping statement” about air conditioning. The facts had to be explored thoroughly; where in India could the couple live; what were the average temperatures; could the heat be mitigated by air conditioning; were there any cooler places to live? There was nothing fundamentally wrong with a finding that a person’s sensitivity to heat was an insurmountable obstacle, but evidence was required. Relationship formed while immigration status precarious The other very interesting takeaway from the judgment was a critical look at the Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on the relationship being formed whilst Ms Lal’s immigration status was precarious. Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 says that “(4) Little weight should be given to— (a) a private life, or (b) a relationship formed with a qualifying partner, that is established by a person at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully. (5) Little weight should be given to a private life established by a person at a time when the person’s immigration status is precarious.” The Upper Tribunal judge thought that this “required him to attach little weight to a couple’s relationship when that relationship has been entered into at a time when the applicant’s immigration status is precarious”. This, the Court of Appeal said, was wrong. Nowhere in section 117B does it say that little weight must be given to a relationship formed with a qualifying partner when a person’s immigration status is precarious (as distinct to unlawful). Rather, it is open to courts and tribunals to give such weight to the relationship as is appropriate: “Clearly there are degrees of precariousness in a person’s situation ranging from, at one extreme, someone who is in the country in breach of immigration laws and is liable to removal through to someone who has been present lawfully in the country for some years and is on a pathway to settled status (such as the five or ten year partner route in the UK) but does not yet have indefinite leave to remain. It would be unreasonable to attach equal weight to family relationships established by individuals in such different legal situations and there is no “settled jurisprudence” which requires this. Rather, the Jeunesse case makes clear that a person’s immigration status may greatly affect the weight to be given to their right to respect for family life.” Ultimately, all of this discussion was academic as Ms Lal and Mr Wilmhurst were now parents to a British child; section 117B(6) was therefore engaged. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and it is up to the Home Office to reconsider matters. Once again, there is nothing here which is brand new but it is useful as a reminder that even in cases where there are not children, paragraph EX.1(b) is still very much arguable (even though a lot of the time it feels like the Home Office is mindlessly rejecting these cases!). The key is to take the time to properly explain, particularise and provide supporting evidence of a claim.
  5. Приветствую. Сейчас у Home Office очередь на рассмотрение более 327 000 заявлений. Нужно будет немного подождать. Если все правильно сделали, получите вот такое решение и BRP, которое получают мои клиенты по категории EU Settled Status обычно за несколько недель:
  6. Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила продление ее визы жены по категории Appendix FM Partner (заявление FLR(M)). Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения: https://www.legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 3.5 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org
  7. Просто ответьте на вопросы, и все.
  8. 13 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) >>> I do not have a current passport. Can I still use my expired passport in the immigration application ? The answer is “depending on the application type”. In line with para 34(b)(ii) of the UK Immigration Rules: (b) Proof of identity for the purpose of this paragraph means: … (ii) if the applicant does not have a valid passport or national identity card, their most recent passport or (except a PBS applicant) their most recent national identity card; or … >>> Can I travel while my EU Settled Status (EUSS) application is pending ? The answer is “Yes”. “The EUSS caseworker guidance : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-settlement-scheme-caseworker-guidancestates that: “An application made under Appendix EU will not be treated as automatically withdrawn if the applicant travels outside the Common Travel Area before the application has been decided.”
  9. Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередная клиентка из Украины получил EU Settled Status (EUSS/ILR). Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения: https://www.legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели довольно быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org
  10. 12 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) >>> Confirmed: children with foreign stepfathers are being unlawfully denied citizenship The Home Office has dropped its appeal against a judgment that children whose mother is married to someone other than their father are being unlawfully discriminated against by British nationality legislation. In July 2018, the High Court ruled that part of the British Nationality Act 1981 is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was K (A Child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1834 (Admin). The provision in question was section 50(9A). It states that: For the purposes of this Act, a child’s father is – “(a) the husband, at the time of the child’s birth, of the woman who gives birth to the child…” This can prevent a child’s biological father from being recognised as the child’s legal father for the purpose of passing on his British citizenship. In K’s case, the Home Office tore up her British passport, saying that she wasn’t legally a citizen — even though she could prove that her biological father was British. The effect of section 50(9A) was her mother’s new husband was treated as her father, denying K citizenship. The High Court found that: “the scheme of section 50(9A) of the BNA 1981 as the Defendant currently reads and applies it breaches the Claimant’s right under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8, to enjoy equal access to the ability to acquire her biological father’s nationality which she would enjoy if her mother had not been married to a man other than her biological father at the time of her birth.” The Home Office initially appealed. But Law Lane Solicitors, representing K, now say that the appeal has been abandoned. The government is expected to take remedial action to change the law. That was what happened after the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility about a different element of nationality law in Johnson [2016] UKSC 56. But this could take some time: Johnson was handed down in October 2016, and the resulting remedial order not made until July 2019. What can children caught by section 50(9A) do in the meantime? They can apply for registration as British at the Home Office’s discretion, but this costs over £1,000 and involves a good character test. There’s a decent argument that such a fee would be unlawful: the Home Office has already conceded in Williams [2017] EWCA Civ 98 that the power to charge a nationality or immigration fee may not be exercised incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights (see paragraph 30). Victims of the Windrush scandal did not have to pay for citizenship: the Home Secretary could do the same for children currently being denied citizenship unlawfully. Challenging the good character test in such cases would be more complicated, as unlike the fee it is required by primary legislation. All the same, families where a child is being denied automatic citizenship because their mother has remarried should seek advice on their options.
  11. Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередная клиентка из Белоруссии получила продление визы жены по категории Appendix FM Partner (заявление FLR(M)). Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org
  12. Анкету иногда требуют. Поэтому я обычно клиентам говорю принести распечатку анкеты так же.
  13. 11 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) >>> I got married in my national Embassy in the UK. Will my marriage be accepted by the Home Office ? Under the Marriage Act 1994 it is only possible for an embassy to be listed as an approved building (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-marriages-and-partnerships-approved-premises-list) for a civil marriage in the UK if the premises are regularly available to the public for use for the solemnization of marriages or the formation of civil partnerships, and public access to any proceedings in approved premises must be permitted without charge. Currently, no diplomatic premises in the UK are approved for marriage or civil partnership. >>> New NHS visa announced: https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-boris-johnson-to-target-two-of-the-most-contentious-issues-of-the-campaign-11857046 The UK Government is planning to introduce a “NHS visa” as part of their proposals for an Australian style points based immigration system should they win the general election. The aim is to ensure that the NHS is able to source overseas doctors and nurses once EU free movement comes to an end post-Brexit. From today’s media reports we know that the visa will cost £464, half the normal fee. The visa process will be fast-tracked — decisions will be made within two weeks — and NHS workers applying through this route will have access to some form of payment system to repay the immigration health surcharge in instalments via their salary once in the UK. It sounds promising. The reduced fee is certainly a positive step and hopefully a sign that the government accepts that the current immigration system has become exorbitantly expensive. The fast-track processing is less exciting, as most non-settlement visas can already be processed via a priority service within a week for a fee of around £250. What will be interesting is whether this enhanced processing is offered free of charge for NHS workers, or if in the small print there will be hidden costs attached — fees to book appointments or scan documents, for instance — which visa applicants often get stung by. The fact that NHS workers have to pay the £400 per year NHS surcharge in the first place is laughable. At the very least they should get some form of John Lewis-style employee discount. A repayment system will still mean a nurse losing £2,000 from their salary over several years, on top of the up-front visa fee. Exempting them from the charge altogether would show a real intent to broaden the UK’s appeal to foreign medical professionals. The announcement shines a tiny bit more light on the government’s overall plans for the immigration system. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has said that the new visa route is “part of our plan for an Australian-style, points-based immigration system that allows us to control numbers while remaining open to vital professions like nurses”. We still do not know whether this antipodean vision will be in addition to, or a replacement for, our current points based system. The indications are that this new visa will be outside the Tier 2 work visa apparatus — which raises the question of whether our current sponsorship system will be maintained. Again, though, this is another example of politicians claiming that a points based system will allow them to control net migration, when the evidence, and the UK’s own recent history, shows that this reasoning is flawed. With ministers unable to say whether the Conservatives want immigration to go up or down, honest answers on why we need an Australian points based system are way overdue.
  14. Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередная клиентка из Украины получила ее визу жены британского гражданина. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели за несколько недель. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org
  15. 08 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) >>> Home Office Fact sheet: Graduate Immigration Route – Further update: https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/10/14/fact-sheet-graduate-immigration-route/ On 11 September 2019 the UK Government announced the creation of a new immigration route which will enable international students to remain in the UK for two years after they have completed their studies. Key Points: • The Graduate Immigration Route will be available to international students who have completed a degree at undergraduate level or above at a Higher Education Provider with a track record of compliance and who have a valid Tier 4 visa at the time of application. • Successful applicants on this route will be able to stay and work, or look for work, in the UK at any skill level for a maximum period of two years. Graduates will be able to switch into skilled work once they have found a suitable job. • The new route will be launched in the summer of 2021, meaning that any eligible student who graduates in the summer of 2021 or after will be able to apply for the route. This includes students who have already started their courses. Universities will also be able attract students starting in the 2020/21 academic year on the basis that they will benefit. • The launch of the route demonstrates the government’s support for our education sector, and commitment to the International Education Strategy, which sets out our ambition to increase education exports to £35 billion and the number of international higher education students to 600,000 by 2030. • The graduate immigration route will require a new application. • It will include the payment of a visa fee and the Immigration Health Surcharge. The exact fee will be set out in due course. • Those who graduate and whose Tier 4 leave expires before the route is introduced will not be eligible, however, most of these students will have had no expectation of benefitting from such a route when they applied to study in the UK. Statistics: • In the year ending June 2019, the number of sponsored student visa applications rose 9% to 236,679. This included an 11% increase for the higher education sector to 201,919. Frequently asked questions: Why can’t it be implemented sooner? It takes time to develop a new immigration route and ensure the framework is in place for it to successfully operate. Introducing the route in the summer of 2021 will mean that all students who graduate in the summer of 2021 or after will benefit, regardless of when they started their course. This route was announced in September 2019 to ensure that universities and stakeholders could promote the route when attracting prospective students. It will enable students to decide where to study, knowing they have the option of staying in the UK to work after completing their studies. Will students who are already here be able to benefit? Any student who successfully completes their degree-level course at a qualifying institution in the summer of 2021 or after will be eligible. This includes students who are already studying. Those whose Tier 4 leave expires before the route is introduced will not be eligible for it, however, most of these students will have had no expectation of benefitting from such a route when they applied to study in the UK. These students can still benefit from the generous provisions which allow them to switch in the skilled work route on favourable terms. Will universities be expected to act as sponsors for those students on the graduate immigration visa after they have graduated? Individuals applying for the Graduate Immigration Route will not need a sponsor. Tier 4 sponsors will not need to fulfil any sponsorship duties for their students if they switch onto the Graduate Immigration Route and students will not need a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) to apply under this route. Tier 4 sponsors, however, will continue to be responsible for their students while they are studying. Will this route count towards settlement? The route is non-extendable and does not count towards settlement. However, graduates who find an appropriate job and meet the requirements will be able to switch into skilled work, which is a route to settlement. >>> Any overstaying technically breaks long residence, Court of Session agrees: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2019/2019_CSOH_81.pdf The controversial English Court of Appeal long residence case of Ahmed has now been endorsed north of the border by the Court of Session in Mbomson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] CSOH 81. Lord Malcolm’s decision is short: although not bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision, his lordship is nevertheless persuaded by it and accordingly endorses it. What was the decision in Ahmed and now Mbomson? The courts have interpreted the sloppily drafted Immigration Rules on long residence to hold that any period of overstaying, no matter how small, will break “continuous lawful residence” for the purposes of a 10-year long residence application. Residence is broken, in this context, regardless of whether or not it was absolved by the granting of a subsequent application. The rules do not permit a grant of leave on long residence grounds where there has been a break in continuous lawful residence through overstaying, but the guidance clearly allows caseworkers to exercise discretion in disregarding certain periods of overstaying. See page 16: “Gaps in lawful residence You may grant the application if an applicant: • has short gaps in lawful residence through making previous applications out of time by no more than 28 calendar days where those gaps end before 24 November 2016 • has short gaps in lawful residence on or after 24 November 2016 but leave was granted in accordance with paragraph 39E of the Immigration Rules • meets all the other requirements for lawful residence” It is clear from the above that applications where there is past overstaying can be granted, and that the Home Office is not concerned about the kinds of overstaying listed. The next section of the document says: “Any decision to exercise discretion and not refuse the application on these grounds must be authorised by a senior caseworker at senior executive officer (SEO) grade or above. When granting leave in these circumstances, the applicant must be granted leave outside the rules for the same duration and conditions that would have applied had they been granted leave under the rules.” So any period of overstaying should indeed normally lead to a refusal, as per the Rules and the interpretation of both the English and Scottish courts, but that such applications can (and should if eligible) nevertheless be granted outside of the Immigration Rules rather than under paragraph 276B. It seems to be the only logical way of reconciling the otherwise harsh Immigration Rules on the one hand and the relatively generous policy on the other. If one thing is clear, it’s that the Home Office needs to get its collective finger out and set the record straight. >>> Start-up and Innovator visas: Guidance for endorsing bodies: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjgjYzG1trlAhVBxoUKHb6ZAHYQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F834100%2FEndorsing_body_guidance_V._10-19.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0QHFuCMWwBS4fhgOaSP9Tb >>> UK ancestry guidance update: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLldHb19rlAhVw1-AKHTjfDt4QFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F845201%2Fuk-ancestry-v17.0-ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Y96eNgJSusK_vQkXk4MZr This resource can be accessed aove. There are substantial changes to this document which are listed on pages 4-8.
×
×
  • Создать...