British Lawyer

26 April 2018 – Read the reviews about our assistance to immigrants and their families like yours here: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/reviews.php</noindex> And as usual, the useful and just interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923 >>> Can the missing part of the lawful residence under the 10 Year Long Residence Rule (para 276) be accumulated while awaiting an appeal hearing ? The answer is “it may”. That means that if the appeal has not yet been heard by the judge, then the appellant may apply to vary the grounds, relying on the case of the MU (‘statement of additional grounds’ – long residence – discretion) Bangaldesh [2010] UKUT 442 (IAC) where the Tribunal agreed that a person could accumulate ten years (for the Long Residence application for ILR) while waiting for an appeal hearing and that it would then be up to the Tribunal to rule on whether the Appellants met the criteria. If the only missing part were the English language / KOL requirement then the Respondent would grant a shorter period of leave. The headnote of that case reads as follows: “As held in AS (Afghanistan) and NV (Sri Lanka) [2010] EWCA Civ 1076, there is no time limit on serving a Statement of Additional Grounds in response to a ‘section 120 notice’. Thus, an appellant may accrue ten years’ lawful leave (including leave extended by section 3C of the 1971 Act) while his appeal is pending. The Tribunal may then be asked to decide whether the appellant qualifies for indefinite leave under the Long Residence Rule.” If the appellant has already had the hearing and is just waiting for the decision, there is no benefit to the appellant in waiting until the appeal rights are exhausted unless the appellant needs a positive finding on an ancillary matter in order to succeed under 276B – for example, if the appellant needs a finding that the appellant has not used ETS deception, for example. >>> There is no residence requirement for registration in case the child is born in the UK but is then taken overseas for a number of years, and the parents are divorced. If, say the father is granted ILR and is naturalized as a British citizen, the child can then generally be registered as a minor British citizen at any time. >>> Submitting the missing documents after the application was lodged is not a good idea The reason is described in the para 34 of the Rules. Also, as an example, the para D of the Appendix FMSE states that: “D. (a) In deciding an application in relation to which this Appendix states that specified documents must be provided, the Entry Clearance Officer or Secretary of State (“the decision-maker”) will consider documents that have been submitted with the application, and will only consider documents submitted after the application where sub-paragraph (, (e) or (f) applies.” The difficulty is that the date of submission is usually the date of posting under para 34 of the Rules. Therefore, if an applicant deliberately does not provide any documents at the time of the application, not reassurance can be assumed that the application can then unilaterally submit additional documentation unless requested by the caseworker. >>> Home Office News: Free citizenship for the Windrush generation (23 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-cit...ntent=immediate</noindex> Members of the Windrush generation who arrived in the UK before 1973 will be eligible for free citizenship, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced today. >>> Home Office Statement: Home Secretary statement on the Windrush generation (23 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home...ntent=immediate</noindex> The Home Secretary's statement to the House of Commons on the Windrush generation. >>> Home Office Guidance: Undocumented Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK (23 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ntent=immediate</noindex> Information about what undocumented long-term residents of the UK need to do to obtain documents showing their status here.

+1............. Подтверждаю.

Мне несколько раз в неделю звонят русскоговорящие и не только форумчане. У кого как. Кто-то всего 6-8 недель ждет, кто-то уже 5-й месяц. Если хотите быстро - подавайте через личный визит.

А разве родители не будут жить с Вами ?

Приветствую. В анкете есть опция указать другое (альтернативное правописание имени). Так же можете в секции дополнительной информации указать.

Отличные новости. С паспортом обычно инетереснее уже - последний этап, так сказать.

25 April 2018 – Read the reviews about our assistance to immigrants and their families like yours here: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/reviews.php</noindex> And as usual, the useful and just interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923 >>> The European Court of Justice could extend Surinder Singh rights to unmarried partners: <noindex>http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/docu...&cid=503334</noindex> On 10 April 2018, Advocate General Bobek delivered his Opinion in C-89/17 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger, following a reference made to the Court of Justice of the European Union, by the former President of the Upper Tribunal, McCloskey J. There were four questions referred to the CJEU. Essentially, the issue is whether Surinder Singh free movement rights apply to unmarried couples as well as spouses. The President also asked whether the lack of a right of appeal against the refusal of a residence card to an extended family member was compatible with EU law. The Advocate General concluded that the principles derived from case law such as Singh and O and B were not limited to family members. They could be applied by analogy to extended family members too; in this case, an unmarried partner. Therefore, the Advocate General considered: “Article 21(1) and Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Union citizen has created or strengthened his family life during the exercise of residence rights in another Member State, the facilitation regime provided for in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 is applicable by analogy to the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship upon the return of the Union citizen to his Member State of origin. As a result, that Member State must facilitate, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the directive, in accordance with its national legislation, the entry and residence of the partner with whom the Union citizen has a duly attested durable relationship. When a Union citizen returns to his Member State of origin after having exercised his residence rights in another Member State where he has created or strengthened his family life with a partner with whom he has a duly attested durable relationship, Article 21(1) and Article 45 TFEU require that, when deciding on the entry and residence of that partner, the Member State of origin of the Union citizen undertakes an extensive examination of their personal circumstances and justify any refusal of entry or residence, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38.” The judgment is anticipated in approximately three to six months. >>> Court of Appeal to Home Office: Go Away: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/790.html</noindex> The judgment is noteworthy for what it says about the Home Office approach to litigation, and for demonstrating how hard it is to win a deportation appeal. “There was no issue of general importance other than the suggestion that there was a “systemic” problem in the UT. That was an unusual allegation and a serious one… Having obtained permission on that basis, the Appellant failed either to make the submission good with evidence or to pursue the argument. She abandoned it without even explaining why. In my view, in all the circumstances of this case, the Appellant’s conduct was indeed unreasonable to a high degree.” It is ironic that the Secretary of State complained of a “systemic” issue with the Upper Tribunal’s treatment of deportation cases. It has long been the Secretary of State’s approach to challenge every allowed deportation appeal, notwithstanding the merits of the case, arguing at almost every turn that determinations of the immigration tribunals refuse to exhibit sufficient cap-doffing to the “public interest” in booting out foreign criminals. As ever in this area, decisions are driven as much by politics as they are the law, with no apparent concern for the consequences. The Court of Appeal’s punitive costs order is the least it could have done. >>> Immigration Rules are a disgrace, senior judge complains: <noindex>https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/upl...ty-16042018.pdf</noindex> Lord Justice Irwin has labelled the Immigration Rules a “disgrace” in the latest example of judicial disquiet over the complexity and poor drafting of the bedrock immigration regulations. Speaking earlier this week, the Court of Appeal judge hit out at “obscurity” and “cannibalistic drafting” in legislation, of which he said the Rules “provide many classic examples”. The end result is a product that lay people find “completely impenetrable”. Irwin concluded that: "The Immigration Rules are, in truth, something of a disgrace." Irwin, who was first appointed to the judiciary in 2006, noted that the work of the parliamentary and government lawyers who draft laws “can be rendered more difficult where political objectives, perhaps particularly populist political objectives, come into play”. In a speech entitled “Complexity and obscurity in the law”, Irwin also used the EEA Regulations as an example of bad practice. They contain “at least three different bases on which the Secretary of State could refuse an application” from an extended family member, the judge pointed out, “though it was often unclear how these interrelated”. Irwin was part of the Court of Appeal bench that decided Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1755 (reported on Free Movement in this post), from which that example comes.

Так об этом и речь вроде выше и шла ?

На русском. Старшая (11) знает русский хорошо. Младшие дети (3 и 5) - отвечают по английски. Когда хотят что-то доказать, чтобы обратили внимание - переходят на русские слова. Кстати, дети еще и валийский язык учат (Cymraeg). Старшая выступает на олимпиалах по валийскому языку. Эстонский решили не прививать.

Отличные новости. Мы с Вами на пару дней разминулись. Я подаю заявления клтиентов в UK BA Солихул по четвергам, и иногда - по вторникам. На этой неделе был с парой форумчан в четверг: http://forum.chemodan.ua/index.php?s=&...t&p=1182175 Кто Вам ILR письмо подписал в UK BA ? Mohammed Jamil ?

Priority, скорее всего.

Да, российское первое, т.к. РФ будет требовать отказ от других гражданст (если УЖЕ есть). А британию не волнует количество гражданств у человека. Действительно, у моей старшей дочери 3 гражданства подтверждены. У младших - только британское (уже лень было получать документы; надо будет - сами когда вырастут получат, если захотят).

Как прошла подача на ILR сегодня, если не ошибаюсь ?

В принципе, очень хороший срок.

22 April 2018 – Read the reviews about our assistance to immigrants and their families like yours here: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/reviews.php</noindex> And as usual, the useful and just interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923 >>> Home Office Guidance: Guidance on application for UK visa as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) (19 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ntent=immediate</noindex> This guidance will help you apply for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa or extend your stay in the UK. NB: This is the 2nd (!) change to the T1E Guidance in 2018 ! >>> Home Office Guidance: Good character: nationality policy guidance (20 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ntent=immediate</noindex> This guidance tells Home Office staff how to assess the good character requirement in relevant nationality applications. It applies to all decisions taken on or after 11 December 2014. >>> Children born abroad to those with ILR are not born British – see the Section 2, British Nationality Act 1981. >>> If you are a British citizen by descent and have children born abroad and you are a single mother - what visa do you apply for the children to come to the UK on then ? The child may apply for a child settlement visa: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-family-members</noindex> Also, if the child satisfies paras A277, A280(, 297, (perhaps also due to satisfying 297(e) or 297(f)), then the UK BA may grant that child ILE: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...e-to-remain-ilr</noindex> Also, if the child’s mother has previously lived in the UK for at least three continuous years prior to child’s birth, then the child may be entitled to register as a British citizen by descent under Section 3(2). It is worth remembering, however, that the registration under the Section 3(5), after three years’ residence in the UK, may be preferable, as the child would then be British otherwise than by descent. >>> Home Office Guidance: Undocumented Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK (19 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ntent=immediate</noindex> This page provides more information for Commonwealth citizens in the UK who may not have documents demonstrating their right to be here (known as ‘Windrush’ cases). It sets out a series of scenarios which may be relevant to you, provides links to forms and guidance as well as information about what evidence can be provided as part of your application and contact information. >>> It has been brought to our attention that many EEA nationals are being asked to resubmit all the evidence that they submitted for their Permanent Residence documents when seeking to naturalise as British Citizens. Further, we have been informed of cases where naturalised EEA nationals are being asked to resubmit evidence when they renew their passports to check that original caseworkers did not make any errors in the initial naturalisation process. This is the warring trend indeed…

Из подачи заявлений форумчан и не только в личном визите в нашем местном UK BA Premium Service Centre (PSC) на этой неделе. Я подавал заявления клиентав на : 1) Продление визы PBS Dependent 2) Переход с 10-и летнего пути на 5-и летний путь для получения ПМЖ В первом случае case-worker не знала разницу между Tier 1 PBS Dependent и Tier 2 PBS Dependent, если спонсор (бывший "тиршик") уже получил британский паспорт. Пришлось помочь коллеге и кратко но доходчиво объяснить разницу. Во втором случае клиентка быстрее получит ILR И съкономит тысячи фунтов избежав ненужных продлений "виз" в будущем. Сдали отпечатки, и я опустил клиентов попить кофе, сделать шоппинг ну или просто отдохнуть - рядом очень большой торговый центр. Через 2.5 часа мне позвонили из UK BA и сказали, что клиенты получили положительные решения. Мы все вернулись в PSC, я отдал клиентам документы UK BA, после чего клиенты разъехались по домам. Ждем новые BRP карточки, которые обычно присылают на третий день (по договору с UK BA PSC), т.е. намного быстрее, чем в других случаях. Погода была просто чудесной, +25С. Собственно говоря, на сегодня все.

Если дети до этого НЕ БЫЛИ в UK с Вами как Ваши dependents - не нужно. И если были - так же не нужно; разве что спросят, где дети ?

Приветствую, Я об ожидании в МИНИМУМ 1.5 года предупреждал не раз. Исходя их этого, апеллировать есть смысл, когда смфсла переподать НЕТ (т.е. видно, что UK BA не правы но будут продолжать отказываться). В таких случают НУЖНО консультироваться с юристом, чтобы знать ВСЕ варианты.

Приветствую, Да, теперь понятно. Обычно офрмляется сначала паспорт РФ, потом - UK. Т.е. РФ "не ввсе равно, какой паспорт уже есть у ребенка". А UK - все равно.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Приветствую, На каком основании Вы считаете что ребенок может получить британское гражданство ? Из Вашей общей информации ниже этого не видно. Уточните статус гражданина EU на момент рождения ребенка в UK - был ли у гражданина EU формально получен Permanent Residence ?

+1.............

18 April 2018 – Read the reviews about our assistance to immigrants and their families like yours here: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/reviews.php</noindex> And as usual, the useful and just interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923 >>> Home Office amnesty for the long-time resident Commonwealth Citizens announced: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-team...ntent=immediate</noindex> A new team to help Commonwealth citizens confirm their status in the UK has been announced by the Home Secretary today. "The new dedicated team will work across government to help individuals identify and gather evidence to confirm their existing right to be in the UK. The team will include a dedicated contact point and aim to resolve cases within 2 weeks once the evidence has been put together. In addition, no one affected will be charged for the documentation which proves their right to be here. The package of measures is being introduced to support individuals, who have resided in the UK for an extended period of time, and encourage them to come forward and regularise their stay. It will help guide individuals through the process and use data from across government to help build a picture that will evidence a person’s right to be here. Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: This is about individuals, people who have built their lives here in the UK and contributed so much to our society. I don’t want them to feel unwelcome or to be in any doubt about their right to remain here. There is absolutely no question about their right to remain and I am very sorry for any confusion or anxiety felt. The vast majority will already have documentation that proves their right to be here. For those that don’t I am announcing a new dedicated team that will be set up to help these people with getting the documentation they need and do it quickly. We’ve also set up a webpage and have been speaking to charities, community groups and High Commissioners about providing advice and reassurance to those affected and we will set up a dedicated contact point to ensure this is resolved as soon as possible. The new team will work with HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and other relevant bodies to help people evidence their right to be here. The Home Office has also published a new web page which provides information and guidance for former Commonwealth citizens. It gives examples of the type of evidence that can be provided to support applications including exam certificates, employment records, your National Insurance number, birth and marriage certificates or bills and letters." >>> UK Visas and Immigration Guidance: Undocumented Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK (17 April 2018): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ntent=immediate</noindex> Information about what undocumented long-term residents of the UK need to do to obtain documents showing their status here. This page provides more information for Commonwealth citizens in the UK who may not have documents demonstrating their right to be here (known as ‘Windrush’ cases). It sets out a series of scenarios which may be relevant to you, provides links to forms and guidance as well as information about what evidence can be provided as part of your application and contact information. 17 April 2018: Contact telephone number added. >>> Tribunal confirms Home Office decides what tribunal can consider: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2018/87.html</noindex> In the case of Quaidoo (new matter: procedure/process) [2018] UKUT 87 (IAC), the tribunal tells appellants that if they do not like a decision on what is or is not a “new matter” they will have to judicially review the tribunal’s decision. The official headnote: 1. If, at a hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that a matter which an appellant wishes to raise is a new matter, which by reason of section 85(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Tribunal may not consider unless the Secretary of State has given consent, and, in pursuance of the Secretary of State’s Guidance, her representative applies for an adjourn-ment for further time to consider whether to give such consent, then it will generally be ap-propriate to grant such an adjournment, rather than proceed without consideration of the new matter. 2. If an appellant considers that the decision of the respondent not to consent to the considera-tion of a new matter is unlawful, either by reference to the respondent’s guidance or other-wise, the appropriate remedy is a challenge by way of judicial review. >>> Good news for people appealing curtailment of leave on human rights grounds: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/642.html</noindex> Lord Justices Hickinbottom, Kitchin and Coulson have delivered an interesting judgment concerning the free-standing balancing exercise of Article 8 ECHR in the context of a leave curtailment. The case is Tikka v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 632. The Court of Appeal found that the suitability test applicable in entry clearance and leave to remain cases when the applicant has “caused serious harm” is the same. It went on to state that there is no point in requiring an appellant who has always legally resided in the UK to leave the country and apply for entry clearance if his leave is curtailed in order to assess his Article 8 rights. The case may be of use to the appellants for its analysis of the (lack of) public interest in requiring applicants who have legally resided in the UK to leave the country if their leave is curtailed, in order to have their Article 8 claim assessed. The court was clear in stating that even a temporary separation pending an application to re-enter would not be proportionate where the applicant is not unlawfully present in the UK. This conclusion sits well with authorities such as Chikwamba, MA (Pakistan) and Hayat. If there is no issue of “queue-jumping” the Home Office has no reason to require that an application be made from abroad.

Приветствую, На основании Regulation 10(5)(a) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 срок экономической активности участвующих сторон должне покрывать весь период длительности развода.

Приветствую, Исходя из практического опыта, я рекомендую приложить то, что Вы (пока) не хотите приложить, т.е. : "контракт, пейслипы". Я еще приллжил бы баковские выписки, чтобы было видно, что Вы не в "минусах".