British Lawyer

Обычно нет (при возврате в UK). Единственное, что могут спросить на границе - что Вы собираетесь делать, т.к. виза заканчивается (собираюсь продлять и т.п.).

Похоже на справедливый отказ. Я по делам своих клиентов (дети) подаю больше документов. Если ребенку В МОМЕНТ рассмотрения будет 21 год - ситуация значительно усложнится. Жду Вас на Skype или телефонную консультацию. Я могу помочь.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Так и есть, на самом деле. Проще получить любую шенгенсткую визу - и вперед по EU.

Приветствую, Если Вы имеете в виду скорость рассмотрения - нет в общей очереди (но можно доплатить за ускоренное рассмотрение).

Приветствую, Обязательно или пасспорт, или ID карту на основании Regulation 21(5).

Сроки рассмотрения недавно одобренных UK BA почтовых заявлений клиентов: - EEA(PR) - граждане EU (employment) - 1 месяц (пока - рекорд !) - EEA(PR) - non-EEA - от 6 до 6.5 месяцев (увы, сроки рассмотрения опять начали рости...) - EEA(EFM) (unmarried partners) - 6 месяцев минимум - EEA(FM) - 5.5 6 месяцев - Натурализация (AN, MN1) - 3 недели - 2 месяца (быстрее у тех, кто был на рабоче визе типа Tier 2, дольше у тех - кто был self-employed) - EEA Family Permit для приезда в UK (из России, Белоруссии и Украины) - 15 дней в среднем - Визы жен и визы невест (включая 1 жениха мужского пола) (Украина, Россия) - ускоренное рассмотрение - 10-14 рабочих дней - Заявлений для привоза ребенка на ПМЖ в UK с мамой по принципу Sole Responsibility (Россия) - 28-37 дней - Заявление на ПМЖ на основании домашнего насилия (Domestic Violence) - 21-51 день (увы, количество заявлений такого типа увеличивается)

14 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org from the family run top category UK & EEA Immigration Law practice who can help ⦁ Can the EEA's national passpprt be NOT submitted (and a certified copy be sent instead) with the PR application where there a non-EEA dependent ? It used to be possible in the recent past in reliance to the case of Barnet and Others (EEA Regs: rights and documentation) [2012] which statd that the requirement in the (EEA) Regulation 17(1)(a) and (2)(a) for the production of a valid passport relates to the passport of the Applicant, not the EEA national. Then the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 came into force and under the Regulation 21(5) when one of the applicants in a non-EEA national the EEA national's valid ID msut still be provided: "(5) Where an application for documentation under this Part is made by a person who is not an EEA national on the basis that the person is or was the family member of an EEA national or an extended family member of an EEA national, the application must be accompanied or joined by a valid national identity card or passport in the name of that EEA national." ⦁ UK Visas and Immigration Guidance: Returns preparation (12 June 2017) : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...rns-preparation</noindex> Guidance on arranging removals for officers dealing with immigration enforcement matters within the UK. ⦁ House of Commons' Library Briefing paper: The Common Travel Area and the special status of Irish nationals in UK law (CBP-7661) (9 June 2017) : http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7661 The Common Travel Area is a special travel zone between the Republic of Ireland and the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. It dates back to the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. This briefing focuses on how the CTA operates between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. ⦁ House of Commons' Library Briefing paper: Migrant workers in agriculture (CBP-7987) (12 June 2017) : <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7987</noindex> The agriculture industry warns of post-Brexit labour shortages. This Commons Library briefing looks at the sector's reliance on migrant labour, the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme and the implications of the UK's exit from the EU. ⦁ UK Visas and Immigration Guidance - Employer sponsorship: restricted certificate allocations (14 June 2017) : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ate-allocations</noindex> This document lists the number of restricted certificates allocated to employer sponsors by month, for foreign workers in Tier 2 (General). It seems that there might be an error in the latest version of the Tiers 2 and 5 sponsor guidance (version 04/17). Para.6.26 of the updated guidance provides as follows: "You must always have a minimum of one level 1 user who is a settled worker. The only exception to this rule is if you are a diplomatic mission or international organisation licensed under the Tier 5 (Temporary Worker) International Agreement sub category." The UK BA has been duly requested to clarify this point. Recent case-law The UK BA's principle of "remove first - appeal later" was found to be unlawful - the case of the R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42, 14 June 2017: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0009.html</noindex> The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement today unanimously allowing the appeals. The judgement delivered by Lord Wilson, with whom everyone but Lord Carnworth (who also allows the appeals but for slightly different reasons) agreed and found the certificates issued under section 94B were unlawful and incompatible with Article 8 as the foreign criminal’s removal in advance of an arguable appeal may be outweighed by a wider public interest, namely that where an appeal right is given, that appeal should be effective (para 35). Para 31 to 35 looks at the objectives of section 94B – The objectives of the SSHD were firstly, to stop allowing foreign criminals preventing deportation from dragging out the appeals process; secondly, to prevent foreign criminals building up a further claim under article 8 to a settled life in the UK (para 31) and thirdly and more fundamentally, they are foreign criminals (para 32). Below is a brief summary of the judgement: Para 37 of the judgement makes clear that Parliament had decided that the overarching criterion for certification under section 94B should be that removal pending appeal would not breach the claimant’s human rights and that the real risk of serious irreversible harm should be only an example of when such a breach would occur. However once again the guidance that the SSHD provided to caseworkers did not make this clear. Instead it appears that caseworkers were routinely applying the certificates. Moreover Lord Wilson at para 39 distances himself from Richards LJ observations in the Court of Appeal and states the issue and focus is on the risk of serious harm to the prospects of an appellants appeal, as that could be a ground that removal would breach their Convention rights. Lord Wilson goes on to find at para 43 that in proceedings for judicial review of a certificate under section 94B, the court or the tribunal must also decide for itself whether deportation in advance of his appeal would breach the appellant’s Convention rights. Lord Wilson moves away from the Wednesbury assessment and confirms at para 47 that if the court or tribunal is to discharge its duty under section 6 of the 1998 Act, the court will need to be more proactive than simply apply the Wednesbury criterion. Therefore the court has a residual power to determine facts and to that end to receive evidence including oral evidence. The requirements of Article 8 are set out at para 48. Article 13 of the Convention plays a significant role in how Lord Wilson reaches his decision. Article 13 is set out at para 49. It protects a person’s right to have an effective remedy. Para 50 is fundamental as this sets the scene for what is required under Article 8 and sets out the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. It is from para 52 to 78 that Lord Wilson considers the relevant circumstances and considerations. Not to mention the very practical difficulties faced by appellants in bringing their cases in a way that would allow them to make full and effective use of their right to appeal before a tribunal after their deportation. The Court finds at para 76 that for the appeals to be effective, the appellants would need at least to be given the opportunity to give live evidence. It is not realistic or possible to give evidence via video link, the Court says the financial and logistical barriers to give evidence on screen are almost insurmountable. Para 78 confirms that the SSHD has failed to strike a fair balance between rights of the appellants and the interests of the community.

Приветствую, Попросите Вашего адвоката написать письмо работодателю со ссылкой на законы и с подтверждение того, что человек может работать. Я так делаю для своих клиентов, если возникает такая необходимость.

По моей статистике почти все мои клиенты сейчас подают по ускоренной процедуре и на Украине, и в Великобритании: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html</noindex>

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

13 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org from the family run top category UK & EEA Immigration Law practice who can help ⦁ Visitor and the Section 3C benefits ? May the Section 3C benefit a visitor who then makes a human rights application before their visa expires? Apparently, yes. The Section 3C may not discriminate between the type of leave as long as the leave was extant at the time of making the application. ⦁ What documents a person born in the UK before 1983 to British parents needs to produce to get a passport if that person started living outside of the UK shortly after his birth ? - Photos and documents you must send: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/apply-first-adult-passpo...s-you-must-send</noindex> - Also, send your full birth certificate or adoption certificate: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/birth-certificates</noindex> ⦁ Can a migrant ask for a refund of the "unused" part of the UK BA IHS fees paid such a migrant then subsequently obtains Settlement (ILR) or switches into another category where another UK BA IHS fee has to paid ? The answer, generally, is "yes": <noindex>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/refu..._on_visa_switch</noindex>

Приветствую, Нет, это не так. Срок - 5 лет.

08 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Is it a requirement for a non EEA national to hold a residence card before applying for permanent residency (on the basis of a 2 year durable relationship) ? Apparently yes, as only direct family members (usually spouses and children under 21 etc) have automatic entitlement into EU law. For extended family members (like unmarried partners etc), they are at the discretion of the UK BA. ⦁ Is it possible to make an application under the EEA Regulations and also a private/family life application under the Immigration Rules for the same applicant before the EEA application is decided ? Apparently yes, as an EEA application is not an application for leave to remain ⦁ Get a faster reply to your visa application, if your postal application is long time outstanding (or you you now regret that you did not apply in person initially): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/faster-reply-visa-application</noindex> You may be able to get a decision on your visa within 5 working days if you’ve sent your application by post and the payment has cleared. If you’re applying for limited leave to remain (using Tier 4 or FLR forms for example) then you won’t be able to get a faster reply using this service. You can also use this service to apply for a biometric residence permit (BRP) if you’re settled in the UK with no time limit. Who can apply You can only use this service if you made your application from within the UK and used one of the following forms: SET (AF) SET (F) SET (LR) SET (M) SET (O) - apart from exceptions SET(O) exceptions If you use the SET(O) form you won’t get a faster reply if you’re: a Tier 1 (Investor) a Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) a self-employed lawyer a seaman a Gurkha a Turkish business person an elderly dependant someone whose case isn’t covered by immigration rules If you’re applying for discretionary leave to remain or humanitarian protection you can only apply through the SET(O) form if you’re: under the transitional arrangements to extend your discretionary leave after 3 years applying to settle in the UK after 6 years discretionary leave Fees You must pay £490 per person, in addition to the application fee you’ve already paid. ⦁ Electronic payslips & the UK BA opinion Appendix A of the Sponsor Guidance states that payslips must be provided for employees already employed who need to be sponsored. Most payslips are now issued electronically. According to the UK BA, the electronic printouts of payslip are perfectly acceptable in line with the requirements of Appendix A

Приветствую: Обычно вот тут заполняла <noindex>https://www.visa4uk.fco.gov.uk/home/welcome</noindex> - Все правильно, это "самый главный" сайт <noindex>https://visas-immigration.service.gov.uk/next</noindex> этот раз на этом сайте Сейчас тоже нужно регистрироваться на <noindex>https://uk.tlscontact.com/ua/kbp/index.php</noindex>? - Этот то же всегда был. Но он - опциональный, скрытая реклама доп. услуг. Я никогда на TLS дополнительно не регестрируюсь. Тысячи заявлений клиентов подал и подаю реулярно. Отсутствие регистрации на TLS на скорость рассмотрения не влияет.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

50/50...зависит от той или иной страны EU. Хотя однозначно работает со страной-Родиной EEA мужа/жены.

Продление визы жены без оплаты госпошлины и взноса на NHS Обратилась клиентка, жена британца. Текущая BRP карточка скоро заканчивалась. Карточка была выдана с ошибкой, т.е. вместо 2.5 лет в ней было 2 года. Клиентке не хватало буквально 5 месяцев для того, чтобы получить ILR. Подавали заявление на продление визы жены британца в личном визите в нашем местном отделении UK BA, где я подаю подобные заявления уже более 2 лет 1-2 раза в неделю. Предварительно попросил менеджера отделения по возможности «сделать одолжение». «Сделать одолжение» получилось. Местное отделение UK BA положительно рассмотрел заявление клиентки и, признав вину своих коллег, сделало продление визы бесплатно, вернув клиентке полностью и госпошлину, и т.н. IHS Surcharge. Делюсь опытом.

Приветствую, На тот сайте - лбщий ориентир, часто отличающаяся от реальности. У меня - реальность :-), т.е. то, что на сама деле реально происходит, вот уже на проятжении пары десятков лет работы с клиентами со всего мира.

Приветствую, Итак: "- UK BA считает, что так нужно." - как "так"? - так, как задан вопрос в анкете :-) Я хотела узнать что это за "British diplomatic post(s) involved if the application(s)" = Визовый Центр или отделение UK BA в UK. И по поводу "- Достаточно написать хотя бы год" - в анкете поля для даты/месяца/года. - ДОстаточно написать просто года, т.е. 2012, например, если не помните. Я так регулярно делаю, если улиенты не помнят точные даты. Я на связи здесь, чтобы ответить на все Ваши остальные вопросы: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Обычно можно, т.к. у Вас EEA документ + партнер из EU. Уточнять в Romanian UK Visa Centre в UK не пробывали ?

Ссылку на "второй" сайт дайте. Обычно GOV UK.

07 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ EEA(PR) applications - can the electronic eP60s be provided by the applicants ? The UK BA's answer is "yes": The EP60s will be acceptable as long as the full detail of the employer’s name and address is shown. ⦁ UK wrong to deny residence rights for non-EEA family members of dual nationals: <noindex>http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/docu...&cid=747813</noindex> This issue was put to the Court of Justice in the case of Lounes C-165/16 has now received a formal Opinion by the Advocate-General suggesting that the UK was wrong to deny EU rights to dual citizens and their family members. Advocate General Opinions The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries, and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. The Advocate-General provides an initial opinion before the judges deliberate and give their own verdict. As the Advocate-General opinion is advisory and do not bind the court, the judges are not obliged to follow them, but they are nonetheless very influential and are followed in most cases. ⦁ Indefinite detention does not breach ECHR says European Court of Human Rights : <noindex>http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:</noindex>[%2233341/13%22]} Unlike most other European countries, there is no time limit on immigration detention in the UK. In addition, the law does not provide for an automatic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. Instead, detainees must proactively challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In an admissibility decision of 18 May 2017, the European Court of Human Rights found that this system does not violate the European Convention of Human Rights, an in particular article 5 on the right to liberty. ⦁ When must the tribunal allow appeals against Home Office decisions containing errors of law : <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/362.html</noindex> Where the Secretary of State makes an error of law in a decision which is then appealed to the tribunal, does the tribunal have to allow that appeal on the basis that the decision contains an error of law? Not unless the decision as a whole is unlawful, finds the Court of Appeal in Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 362 (24 May 2017). ⦁ Can a person granted subsidiary protection be transferred under Dublin III : <noindex>http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/docu...&cid=818694</noindex> The EU does not want asylum seekers to ‘shop around’ its Member States. To this end, various Regulations exist to prevent someone who has already claimed asylum in one Member State from subsequently doing so in another. But what if an applicant has claimed before, the result of which was being granted not refugee status, but subsidiary protection (‘humanitarian protection’ in the UK)? The CJEU has replied to a reference from the German administrative court to deliver its answer.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.