British Lawyer

24 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923 ⦁ TPN (FTT appeals – withdrawal) Vietnam [2017] UKUT 00295 (IAC), 21 July 2017 NB: It has been always a good idea to explain the reasons for withdrawing the appeal. It now seems that the reasoning for withdrawing of the appeal is becoming obligatory (i) The public law character of appeals to the FTT is reflected in the regulatory requirement governing the withdrawal of appeals that any proposed withdrawal of an appeal must contain the reasons for the course mooted and must be judicially scrutinized, per rule 17 of the FTT Rules and rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules. (ii) Judicial evaluation of both the withdrawal of an appellant’s appeal and the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case or appeal is required. (iii) Every judicial determination of an appellant’s proposal to withdraw an appeal or the Secretary of State’s proposal to withdraw requires a brief outline of the reasons for the decision. The purpose of the judicial scrutiny is to ensure that the appeal is being properly and correctly withdrawn. (iv) Judicial scrutiny will normally result in the mooted withdrawal of the appeal being perfected by transmission of the notice to the parties required by Rule 17(iii). However, this will not occur automatically: for example where the proposed withdrawal lacks coherence or is based on a clear material misunderstanding or misconception. (v) The outcome of the judicial scrutiny should be briefly reasoned. (vi) Rule 29 of the FTT Rules is confined to the substantive determination of appeals. (vii) The power of the FTT to set aside a decision under Rule 32 is exercisable only by the FTT President and the Resident Judges. (viii) In cases where an unsuccessful appellant has a choice, best practice dictates that an application to set aside the impugned decision of the FTT under Rule 32 be first exhausted in advance of the lodgement of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Where both species of challenge are lodged simultaneously, it will be sensible to assign them to the same Judge where feasible.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Спасибо за уточнение. Могу вернуть Ваш спокойный сон: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Читают, читают соотечественники форум. На следующую неделю на консультацию ( <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> ) со мной записалось несколько человек, указав тему к консультации как "легализация". Нет ничего невозможного (с).

Сейчас UK BA & EU застряли на переговорах по многим пунктам о правах британцев в EU и европейцев в UK. Каждая неделя приносит "новости".

Все решилось 20-07-2017: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._Accessible.pdf</noindex> Разрешили (в особых случаях !) использовать помощь третьих лиц, потенциальный зароботок от будущего бизнеса, работы и т.п. тем, кто не набирает положенные £18 600. Но в таком случае требуют большое количество дополнительных справок, формальных клятв с нотариальным заверением, справки о размере бизнеса потенциального работодателя, бизнес планы и т.п. Такое впечатление, что смешали 2 визовые категории: виза жены и Tier 1 Entrepreneur. См. страницы 10-14 вышеуказанного документа.

Да дополнителное психотерапевтическое образование помогает, и иногда я это упоминаю в работе с клиентами, когда вижу тот или иной мотив, мешающей клиенту понять ситуации по иммиграции правильно. Always steps ahead ©

"Предупрежен - значит вооружен". Помню, когда после измнения правил 08-07-2012 о получении ПМЖ для нелегалов после 14 лет проживания в Великобритании поменяли на 20 лет, склько людей звонио мне, сокрущаюсь, чуть ли не на следующий день: "Как, 20 лет вместо 14 ? А когда это измениось ...". Времо легализоваться пока есть.

Мало данных, Игорь прав - по какой категории подаете - Appendix FM ("жена британца") ?

Важные новости - измененя в правилах от 20-07-2017: http://forum.chemodan.ua/index.php?showtop...=0#entry1161159 Ответ на Ваш вопрос: да, £500.00.

Важные (выделено) изменения в отношении т.н. категории "жены и партнеры граждан Великобритании, лиц с ПМЖ и лиц со статусом беженца". Резюме (кратное, возможно будут дополнения): - Теперь может учитываться помощь третьих лиц - Теперь может учитываться потенциальный доход иммигранта и партера - Некоторые изменения по английскому языку Фактически произошел частичный возврат к более "щедрым" Правилам, действующим до 08 июля 2012 года. Это хорого. Не хорошо то, что теперь как бы существуют 2 набора Правил, и фактически готовить заявления станет еще сложнее ... 20 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923 ⦁ Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 290, 20 July 2017 : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...90-20-july-2017</noindex> Into force 10 August 2017. Intended to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MM (Lebanon) [2017] UKSC 10. The Government’s response to the judgment of the Supreme Court judgment in MM (Lebanon) et ors [2017] UKSC 10. Insert new general provisions in Appendix FM (paragraphs GEN.3.1. to 3.3.) which require the decision-maker, in the circumstances specified, to consider whether the minimum income requirement is met if the other sources of income, financial support or funds set out in the new paragraph 21A of Appendix FM-SE are taken into account. The specified circumstances are that the minimum income requirement is not otherwise met and that it is evident from the information provided by the applicant that there are exceptional circumstances which could render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because of the ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant, their partner or a child under the age of 18 years whom it is ‘evident’ would be affected by a decision to refuse the application. Paragraph 21A of Appendix FM makes provision as to the other sources of financial support which the decision-maker will take into account in such cases. These are: a ‘credible’ guarantee of sustainable financial support from a third party; a ‘credible’ prospective earnings from the sustainable employment or self-employment of the applicant or their partner; or any other ‘credible’ and reliable source of income or funds available to the couple. Paragraph 21A also makes provision for to be considered in determining credibility and reliability of the source of funds. The decision-maker must consider, when an application does not meet the requirements of the rules, whether, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because it would result in ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant or their family. The Explanatory note asserts that this brings a test already in guidance which was substantially upheld by the Supreme Court in Agyarko & Ikuga [2017] UKSC 11 into the rules. It is further asserted that the rules now provide a complete framework for the Secretary of State’s consideration of an application under Appendix FM on Article 8 grounds. References to leave granted outside the Rules on Article 8 grounds are systematically removed. The changes require the deicison-maker, in considering an application under the new GEN 3.1 to 3.3 provisions, to have regard, as a primary consideration, to the best interests of any child affected by the decision. The changes also provide that grants on the GEN 3.1 to 3.3 bases will put persons on the 10-year route to settlement, with scope to apply to transfer to the five-year route if and when they meet its requirements. Changes are also intended to ensure that a child is granted leave of the same duration and on the same basis as a parent and to ensure that the partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain before the principal does. There is also a drafting, not intended to be a substantial, change to the English language requirement for partners or parents. In a troubling change in paragraph GEN1.11A, destitution as per s 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or particularly compelling reasons relating to the welfare of child will be required to avoid a 'No recourse to public funds' condition.

20 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923 ⦁ Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 290, 20 July 2017 : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...90-20-july-2017</noindex> Into force 10 August 2017. Intended to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MM (Lebanon) [2017] UKSC 10. The Government’s response to the judgment of the Supreme Court judgment in MM (Lebanon) et ors [2017] UKSC 10. Insert new general provisions in Appendix FM (paragraphs GEN.3.1. to 3.3.) which require the decision-maker, in the circumstances specified, to consider whether the minimum income requirement is met if the other sources of income, financial support or funds set out in the new paragraph 21A of Appendix FM-SE are taken into account. The specified circumstances are that the minimum income requirement is not otherwise met and that it is evident from the information provided by the applicant that there are exceptional circumstances which could render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because of the ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant, their partner or a child under the age of 18 years whom it is ‘evident’ would be affected by a decision to refuse the application. Paragraph 21A of Appendix FM makes provision as to the other sources of financial support which the decision-maker will take into account in such cases. These are: a ‘credible’ guarantee of sustainable financial support from a third party; a ‘credible’ prospective earnings from the sustainable employment or self-employment of the applicant or their partner; or any other ‘credible’ and reliable source of income or funds available to the couple. Paragraph 21A also makes provision for to be considered in determining credibility and reliability of the source of funds. The decision-maker must consider, when an application does not meet the requirements of the rules, whether, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8 because it would result in ‘unjustifiably harsh’ consequences for the applicant or their family. The Explanatory note asserts that this brings a test already in guidance which was substantially upheld by the Supreme Court in Agyarko & Ikuga [2017] UKSC 11 into the rules. It is further asserted that the rules now provide a complete framework for the Secretary of State’s consideration of an application under Appendix FM on Article 8 grounds. References to leave granted outside the Rules on Article 8 grounds are systematically removed. The changes require the deicison-maker, in considering an application under the new GEN 3.1 to 3.3 provisions, to have regard, as a primary consideration, to the best interests of any child affected by the decision. The changes also provide that grants on the GEN 3.1 to 3.3 bases will put persons on the 10-year route to settlement, with scope to apply to transfer to the five-year route if and when they meet its requirements. Changes are also intended to ensure that a child is granted leave of the same duration and on the same basis as a parent and to ensure that the partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain before the principal does. There is also a drafting, not intended to be a substantial, change to the English language requirement for partners or parents. In a troubling change in paragraph GEN1.11A, destitution as per s 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or particularly compelling reasons relating to the welfare of child will be required to avoid a 'No recourse to public funds' condition.

Нелегалам следует задуматься, возможно, уже сейчас. Великобритания, скорее всего, так или иначе, выйдет из EU в марте 2019 года. Это означает, что Великобритания, скорее всего, отменит действие "волшебной палочки" ( EEA Regulations) для нелегалов (сейчас нелегалы в браке с гражданами EU могут легализоваться в Великобритании без выезда на основании пока действующих судебных прецедентов типа Metock и т.п.). Соответственно, легализация без выезда на Родину нелегала будет очень затруднена, нужно будет платить более двух с половиной тысяч фунтов (сейчас госпошлина - всего £65) за госпошлину и взнос за NHS (т.н. NHS surcharge). "Предупрежен - значит вооружен". Я на связи, если есть вопросы: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Сейчас для жертв домашнего насилия стало чуть проще начать готовить документы. Это с одной стороны. С другой стороны колическтво документов увеличилось. В неделю я провожу 1-2 консультации по теме домашнего насилия, увы...

Там просто очень с гонором молодая сотрудница UK BA пришла на суд со мной "пободаться". Начала свою речь что, мол, мой клиент нагло использует правила чтобы остаться в UK и т.п. Пришлось остановить ее, быстро и эффективно.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

20 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923 ⦁ How to cancel an outstanding immigration application : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/cancel-visa</noindex> ⦁ Interesting Court of Appeal decision - can a person born in the UK be deported from them UK ? See www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/236.html This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal dismissing the Appellant's appeal against a decision to deport him to Nigeria. The central feature of the case is that he has lived in the UK since birth and has never been to Nigeria and has no substantial links with that country. ⦁ The current SET(M) application form for partners of British citizens/Settled persons (pre July 2012 and post July 2012 applications) can be found here : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-form-06-17.pdf</noindex> Note that the financial requirement still has to be met by those applying for Settlement if their partner visas were issued post July 2012 under the Appendix FM ("the new Rules") ⦁ The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/756), 17 July 2017 and letter from the Lord O’Shaughnessy, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health (Lords) undated but sent 17 July 2017 : <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/75...20170756_en.pdf</noindex> Into effect 21 August 2017 and 23 October 2017, with up front payment for services that are not urgent or immediately necessary and extending the range of providers of NHS-funded services who must make and recover charges for relevant services from an “overseas visitor” from 23 October 2017. Amend the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/238) which provide for the making and recovery of charges for relevant services provided under the National Health Service Act 2006 to certain persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. When an NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust determines that a person is an overseas visitor, it must record that fact and whether the person is exempt from charges against that person’s “consistent identifier” (see regulation 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consistent Identifier) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1439). Refunds are dealt with. Lord O’Shaughnessy’s letter recalls the government’s December 2016 promise to amend the 2015 regulations ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’ to provide that all asylum seekers whose claims have failed and are supported by the Home Office under any provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 be exempt from the charge, not just those supported under s 95 or s 4(2) of that Act. His letter explains that the government has reneged on that promise because the support scheme is about to change, and it has decided that it would be better to amend the 2015 regulations when the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 are commenced ‘to reduce confusion for NHS decision-makers’ (who are no doubt quite confused enough already). No hint is given as to when the support provisions of the Act will come into force. Instead, the only change to regulation 15 effected by these regulations is to make explicit that dependants of persons exempted are exempt. The exemption for persons supported under s 95 is to be retained. There is a promise/warning that at the time when the regulation 15 changes are made, other changes could also be made. EEA applications and intended changes ⦁ EEA applications delays The delays are simply due to the amount of people applying, according to the UK BA.To tackle the increased number of applications, the Home Office has recruited more staff. Initially, this area of the department had 390 staff, now around 600, and they are planning to reach about 800. Staff are covering two shifts a day. Additional shifts have also been added, including evenings and weekends. They are planning to acquire more staff accommodation. The Home Office is aware that the process that people go through to get Permanent Residence is cumbersome. It was always a slow process, which has been made slower by the influx of applications. ⦁ EEA applications - EEA passports Why are not EEA passports returned when they are sent off as part of a non-EEA family member application ? The response from Home Office is that it is because the passport is seen as a ‘supporting document’, rather than an identify document. ⦁ On-line EEA applications forms still have some errors The guidance needs to make it clear that you only need to prove five years. It is very confusing when someone has had different periods of being kinds of ‘qualified person’ e.g. student, employed, self sufficient. With the online form, you are asked whether you have, for example, ever been a student in the UK. Applicants often tick yes, even when the period of time that they were a student falls outside of the 5 year period they are relying upon to prove their PR ⦁ EEA applications on the basis of Domestic Violence when certain information (from the offending party) is missing The Home Office says that in the case of domestic violence, it is practice that the case worker will always check with HMRC for missing information. This agreement is currently in place. ⦁ UK BA + HMRC = faster applications for EEA nationals The UK BA and the HMRC are currently piloting an MOU between the two departments which would ultimately result in applications being required to supply significantly less information. The pilot programme is for 10,000 cases per month. This number is not enough to deal with all of the cases that they have currently, but it is enough for a comprehensive test. The UK BA is cautious but optimistic. With 3 million people likely to be applying for some kind of documentation in the next two years, they want to be able to share data easily. Accessing information from HMRC does not generally add too much time to the application processing time. ⦁ EEA applications - breaks of residence of breaks of employment ? The UK BA explains that in practice, any break of less than six months is treated as an absence, rather than a break in employment or a period of job seeking. The UK BA intends to claify this aspect in the guidance at some point. ⦁ EEA applications and bank statements - does every bank statement's page needs to be stamped ? This is asking too much when some bank statements are very long, and applicants are required to pay their bank for this service. The UK BA says that they will accept statements where only the first page is stamped. The UK BA intends to reflect that in theyr new guidance. ⦁ The UK BA is planning to go more digital with the EEA Permanent Residence application and is even planning to include in the EEA application a section where the applicant can list his or her overseas address, implying that the EEA Permanent Residence application which are currently can only be lodged from within the UK, may in the future be lodged from outside of the UK.

Для ПМЖ по виже "жены британца" нужно минимум прожить в стране 4 года и 11 месяцев. NB Исключения составляют : - смерть супруга - домашнее насилие Тогд ПМЖ можно поулчить быстрее У меня рекорд с одной клиенткой - она приехала в UK по виже жены, пробыла в UK всего 1 день, потом случилось домашнее насилие...UK BA вначале ей отказал - им не понравилось, что она прожила с мужем всего 1 день - на суде этот аргумент UK BA разбил одной репликой - "где в правилах сказано, что жертва домашнего насилия должны терпеть издевательство определенное время ? ". Appeal allowed during the hearing :-) Сейчас у этой клиентки уже гражданство.

18 July 2017 - Useful Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923 ⦁ Useful information note for the EEA national Carer’s Allowance in the UK : <noindex>http://www.airecentre.org/data/files/resou...orkers-2014.pdf</noindex> ⦁ £48,000 damages awarded to torture survivor for injuries suffered during deportation attempt : <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1461.html</noindex> Following a seven-day hearing in the High Court, Mr Felix Wamala, a Ugandan national, was awarded £48,000 in damages for the actions of private security guards contracted by the Home Office in seeking to remove him from the UK. This is the case of Wamala v Tascor Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1461. The judgment is a mammoth one, weighing in at 558 paragraphs plus annexes.

Да, именно так. Убедитесь, что Вы и муж прожили в UK минимум 4 годаи 11 месяцев (муж - так же был экономически активен в этот периож одним из приемлемых способов) на дату подачи.

Теоретически может плохо кончится если быстро рассмотрят - т.е. не хватит времени на ПМЖ, придется лишний раз продляться. Если хотите сделать все быстро - подавайте в январе в личном визите.

Да, нужно платить.

Сегодня пришло решение суда, удовлетворяющего иск моих клиентов (EEA & non-EEA) по поводу их незаконной высылки из Великобритании. Суд так же удовлетворил требование о выплате компенсации клиентам. Вкратце, клиент из EU и его non-EEA жена не были допущены в Великобританию ранее в этом году и я подавал т.н. out-of-country appeal. Учитывая, что клиенты вернулись в EU и non-EEA апеллянт получила германскую Residence Card, судья так же указал UK BA что: “Since their refusal of admission to the UK, the second appellant has been granted a residence card by Germany for a period of 5 years which means that she is not obliged to obtain an EEA family permit before she can enter the UK as per R(on the application of McCarthy and others) v SSHD (Case C-202/13)” То есть победа двойная – non-EEA клиентка может без визы (т.е. не подавая на т.н. EEA Famiy Permit ) въехать в Великобританию.

Понятно. У меня были такие случаи - рассматривали стандартно - у кого-то - раньше, у кого-то - позже.

Спасибо. Я даты стал писать, т.к. многие просили. Да и самому проще (нагляднее).