British Lawyer

Из последних заявлений клиентов: - EEAPR (категории Retained Right of Residence (non-EEA), граждане EU, граждане EU+non-EEA, граждане non-EEA) - 5.5 месяца для non-EEA, 3 месяца для EU - AN (после Tier 1, Tier 2, UK Spouse Visa, EEAPR): 1.5-2.5 месяца - EEAQP - 1.5 месяца - EEA Family Permit: 15 дней

Приветствую, В Вашем случае даже если Ваш муж получит гражданство, Вы все равно можете только подать на Permanent Residence ТОЛЬКО по EU Law, т.е. за £65.00. Подавайте сразу, как можете.

Могу добавить еще Tier 2 (General), если найдете работодателя. Если есть £200 000 - тогда по независимой иммиграции как Tier 1 (Entrepreneur). Могу рассказать обо всем детально: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

10 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Applying as the Family Member of a Tier 1, 2 or 5 migrant in the UK 33.If you are the family member of a Tier 1, 2, or 5 migrant, you cannot apply in the UK if you: - were last granted entry clearance or leave as a visitor, including where they entered the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland to stay under the terms of articles 3A and 4 of the Immigration (Control of Entry through the Republic of Ireland) Order 1972 (as amended by the Immigration (Control of Entry through Republic of Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2014) on the basis of a visa issued by the Republic of Ireland authorities endorsed with the letters “BIVS” for the purpose of travelling and staying in the Republic for a period of 90 days or fewer; or - were last granted entry clearance or leave as a short-term student or a short-term student (child) - were last granted entry clearance or leave as a parent of a Tier 4 (child) student unless the Relevant Points Based System Migrant has, or is being granted, leave to remain as a Tier 5 (Temporary Worker) Migrant in the creative and sporting subcategory on the basis of having met the requirement at paragraph 245ZQ((ii); or - are on temporary admission or temporary release ⦁ Appendix FM vs Academic Grants The appendix FM states that: Income from a maintenance grant or stipend (not a loan) associated with undergraduate study or postgraduate study or research received by the applicant’s partner or the applicant can be counted towards the financial requirement. The person must be currently in receipt of the grant or stipend or will be within 3 months of the date of application, and the grant or stipend must be payable for a period of at least 12 months, or for at least one full academic year, from the date of application or from the date on which payment of the grant or stipend will commence. The interpretation from the above is that the sponsor must to be in receipt of the grant for 12 months from the date of the entry clearance application regardless of how long the sponsor has been receiving the grant for. ⦁ Waiting time in the immigration tribunal now 84 weeks (1.6 years !) for some appeals The latest tribunal statistics, published in March 2017, show that the average waiting time for appeals to be heard in the immigration tribunal is now 48 weeks. This is the time between the appeal being lodged and the appeal being decided, it seems. The breakdown for different types of appeal reveals major disparities between different types of appeal, though, with waiting times for entry clearance appeals — for example for spouses or children applying to join family members in the UK — as high as 84 weeks. That is over a year and a half. With 51% of all entry clearance appeals being allowed in Q3 2016, that is a very considerable impact on a lot people wrongly kept apart by poor quality immigration decisions. ⦁ Guidance from tribunal on strike out powers and appeal to Court of Appeal as remedy: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/123.html</noindex> Official head note: (i) A decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing to exercise its power to reinstate a judicial review claim which has been struck out may be the subject of an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. (ii) Such a decision, given its nature and consequences, is not to be equated with a mere case management decision. (iii) Every decision upon an application to reinstate must give effect to the overriding objective. (iv) Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provides the only mechanism for challenging a strike out order. Rule 43 has no application in this context. The directions in these and hundreds of other cases, many of which will have been handled by the same small firms of solicitors, were that cases would automatically be struck out if the claimant did not serve within 7 days amended grounds for judicial review distinguishing the facts of an individual case from complex Court of Appeal and Upper Tribunal authorities. Just 7 days to read, understand, get money from client and draft amended grounds or instruct Counsel. Automatic strike out. Hundreds of cases. On the face of it, the giving of these directions seems like unbelievably arbitrary behaviour by the tribunal which was obviously contrary to the overriding objective. The directions seem to be deliberately designed to lead to strike out in as many cases as possible. Why 7 days? What was the hurry? Why not 14 days or 28 days? It is impossible to imagine the Secretary of State for the Home Department being treated in similar manner. Perhaps there is more to it, but that is certainly how it looks to an external observer. ⦁ New Home Office policy: Exclusion from the UK: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...on-orders#page4</noindex> This guidance has been completely re-formatted and deals with the exclusion of both non-Economic European Area (non-EEA) nationals and European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and their family members. It replaces Exclusion decisions and exclusion orders guidance which has been archived. It includes: - advice on the Authority to Carry Scheme 2015 - explanation of unacceptable behaviour - updated guidance on rights of appeal - advice on notification of decisions - advice on excluding EEA nationals or their family members under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 - advice on deprivation of citizenship in exclusion cases ⦁ Home Office application to delay Calais Jungle child asylum case refused by tribunal: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/168.html</noindex> In an oral decision in the case of R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (stay of proceedings – principles) [2017] UKUT 168 (IAC) given on 28 March 2017, the Upper Tribunal refused the Secretary of State’s application to stay the Judicial Review proceedings of AO and AM, two unaccompanied minors previously in the Calais Jungle, and who had been refused their transfer to the UK under the expedited Dublin III process. In the decision Mr Justice McCloskey, President of the Upper Tribunal, offers very useful and interesting guidance on the principles to be followed in applications to stay proceedings pending the outcome of another, lead case.

Отлично. Рад был помочь.

08 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Interesting key points in the UK BA new EEA(PR) application form guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ard-form-eea-pr</noindex> - The EEA(PR) form is now mandatory - If you are applying as an employed person, you do not need to provide corresponding proof of residence for the same period - If you are applying in another capacity (for example, as a self-employed person) you only need one piece of residence evidence for every 12 month period instead of the previous two. - You are now not required to provide proof of residence if your 5 year qualifying period ends less than two years before your application for a permanent residence document - You no longer need to list absences less than 6 months in length or absences prior to the 5 year qualifying period - If you have P60s for each year, this will be sufficient on its own to evidence employment (employment caregory) - If you do not have P60s and intend to rely on payslips the guidance clears up how many payslips you need to provide, stating that 3 payslips for each year would be sufficient, with rules about which payslips and intervals between them (employment) - If you were not registered under Worker Registration Scheme (WRS), you can not count any periods of residence prior to 30 April 2011. However, if you were not registered or not exempt you may face questions of good character under this requirement when you apply for British citizenship - Self-employed applications needs to provide many more other documents ⦁ Retained right of residence applications (application EEA(FM)) - when the EEA sponsor has left the UK The new EEA (FM) at section 4.2 offer the option of choosing “I have retained my rights because the EEA national has died or left the UK, OR my marriage has ended in divorce” One can wonder, where does the “has left the UK” come in to force in such an application? The answer is that the direct descendant under the Regulation 10(3)(a)(ii), where they are in education, and that person’s parent under 10(4), can only benefit from this provision ⦁ PBS dependents & absences in excess of 6 months vs Settlement applications It may be possible for a PBS (Tier 1 and 2) Migrant partner to apply for Settlement (ILR) at the same time as the main PBS applicant if that PBS partner has spent more than 6 months in each of the previous 5 years outside of the UK. The PBS partner must have continuous leave under para 319E(d), etc., but there are no restrictions on periods of absences. ⦁ Is it possible to get a Permanent Residence for an EEA national without economic activity etc ? The new EEA Regulation 17(3) implies so: Reg 17(3): (3) The Secretary of State must issue a registration certificate to an EEA national who is the family member of a qualified person or of an EEA national with a right of permanent residence under regulation 15 immediately on application and production of— (a)a valid national identity card or passport issued by an EEA State; and (b)proof that the applicant is such a family member It means that an EEA spouse of an economically active EEA citizen may be issued with Permanent Residence on the bases of just being a family member of a qualified EEA citizen

Приветствую, А категорию и т.п. правильно выбрали ? Все может быть...

По EEA Law Вы можете не жить вместе. Для того, чтобы претендовать на гражданство, нужно получить ПМЖ. После получения ПМЖ Вы можете сами подавать на гражданство, муж уже ни при чем.

Обычно даты открываются буквально на завтра и так до нескольких недель вперед. Возможно, что-то с Вашим браузером ? CRTL+F5 пробовали нажать ? Кэш компьютера чистили ?

04 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Is it possible to submit a passport application for a child born abroad in the UK (first passport) if father is in the UK but child is abroad? Apparently, yes, on the basis of: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/overseas-passports</noindex> The documentary evidence is submitted in the UK and you pay a courier charge for it to be sent by HMPO to the child overseas ⦁ Can the Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) be made from outside of the UK ? Apparently, so as the page 29 of the relevant current Guidance (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606690/T1-Graduate-entrepreneur-v15.pdf) also states that: "The maximum time available as a Tier 1 (Graduate entrepreneur) migrant is 2 years in total, not necessarily 2 consecutive periods of leave. An applicant can therefore have an extension which may be with their original or new endorsing body.". Which suggests that the application for leave to enter can be made provided all other requirements are met. ⦁ UK BA intended ETA/Digital Permissions The UK BA potentialy intends to introduce an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) for non-visa nationals looking to travel to the UK for short periods. This would be similar to the ESTA system used by the US and the ETA system used by Australia. Canada has also introduced a similar system. It will also be similar to the proposed European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). ⦁ The UK BA Guidance relating to the Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK (published 20 June 2016) confirms on page 7 that the category of people applying for ILR on the basis of discretionary leave do not need to meet the KoLL requirement. See <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...11/KoLL-v19.pdf</noindex> ⦁ House of Commons' Library briefing: EU Agencies and post-Brexit options (28 April 2017): <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7957</noindex> "What are EU agencies and what do they do? Will the UK be able to participate in their activities after Brexit? And what will happen to the two that are based in the UK? This paper looks at the roles and functions of EU agencies, the issues surrounding the two UK-based agencies, and whether there are options for continued UK participation after Brexit."." ⦁ House of Commons' Library briefing: Brexit and Gibraltar (CBP-7963) (2 May 2017) : <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7963</noindex> When the UK leaves the EU Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, will leave too. But could special arrangements be negotiated for Gibraltar? Will Spain cooperate in the negotiations between the EU and the UK or could Gibraltar become a bargaining chip for Spain to push its sovereignty claim? This paper considers Gibraltar's constitutional status and some of the possible impacts of Brexit.". ⦁ Written question to Robert Goodwill - Immigrants: Detainees - Cross-System Detention Gatekeeper (27 April 2017) : <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/publicat...17-04-21/71612/</noindex> Dr Sarah Wollaston: [71612] To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether procedures have changed as a result of recent successful prosecutions for unlawful immigration detention. Mr Robert Goodwill: The cross-system Detention Gatekeeper has now been introduced to scrutinise all proposed detentions independently of an arresting team. Individuals can now only enter immigration detention with the authority of the Detention Gatekeeper, who will ensure that there is no evidence of vulnerability which would be exacerbated by detention, that return will occur within a reasonable timeframe and check that any proposed detention is lawful. Separately, Case Progression Panels have been introduced to review all cases within immigration detention by a peer-led panel. These panels focus on ensuring that there is progression toward return for all individuals detained, and that detention remains lawful Recent Case-Law ⦁ Early Day Motion 1194: Zambrano Carers (3 May 2017) : <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/1194</noindex> That this House calls on the Government immediately to grant Zambrano carers the right to remain in the UK; notes the 2012 ECJ judgement in the case Zambrano v Office national de l'emploi provided non-EU nationals with primary caring responsibilities (Zambrano carers) the right to reside in the Member State of which their dependent child or adult is a national; further notes that such rights derived from EU case law will be revocable through primary legislation following the Government's Great Repeal Bill; is concerned that current Zambrano carers or individuals in a similar position in the future may lose their right to remain in the UK; and demands that the Government now makes an immediate and unequivocal guarantee that Zambrano carers can remain in the UK with the same rights which they currently enjoy. ⦁ R (on the application of Majera) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (bail conditions: law and practice) [2017] UKUT 00163 (IAC) (3 May 2017): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-163</noindex> (1) A defect in framing the primary condition of bail granted by the First-tier Tribunal under paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 does not render the grant of bail void. There has, rather, been a valid but defective grant of bail. In such a situation, it is the responsibility of the parties (in particular, the respondent) immediately to draw the defect to the attention of the Tribunal, so that it can be corrected. (2) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act gives the respondent power to impose restrictions on taking employment etc in respect of persons who are subject to immigration control. It is difficult to see how any condition of bail granted by the First-tier Tribunal could affect this freestanding power. (3) Licence conditions imposed by the National Probation Service serve aims wider and different from the conditions that may be imposed by the First-tier Tribunal on a grant of bail. Rather than imposing bail conditions “in the same terms as the licence”, which is what the First-tier Tribunal’s Bail Guidance recommends, the better course is for the First-tier Tribunal to state that its conditions of bail are without prejudice to any conditions contained in the licence, and for judges to ensure there is no conflict between bail conditions and licence conditions. ⦁ R (on the application of Aydogdu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Ankara Agreement – family members – settlement) [2017] UKUT 00167 (IAC) (3 May 2017): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-167</noindex> (I) The settlement of migrant Turkish nationals and their family members does not fall within the scope of the “stand-still clause” in Article 41(1) of the Ankara Agreement (ECAA) Additional Protocol as it is not necessary for the exercise of freedom of establishment under Article 13. Thus the status of settlement in the UK for such Turkish nationals and their family members cannot derive in any way from the ECAA or its Additional Protocol; (II) Where a Turkish national who exercised rights under the ECAA has been granted settlement in the UK the rights of such person and his family members are not derived from the ECAA or its Additional Protocol. ⦁ TM (EEA nationals – meaning; NI practitioners) Zimbabwe [2017] UKUT 00165 (IAC) (3 May 2017) : <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-165</noindex> 1. Schedule 1, paragraph 1 (d) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1547) amended the definition of EEA national to exclude those who are also British Citizens, but that changewas subject to the transitional provisions set out in Schedule 3 of those regulations. Similar provisions were added to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 by the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/1) which amended schedule 6 of the 2016 Regulations by adding a new paragraph 9. 2. Although the reg 1 (2) of the 2016 regulations revoked the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, they are preserved for the purposes of appeals, as are the rights of appeal by an amendment to Schedule 4 of the new EEA Regulations made by the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/1). 3. While the representatives regulated by OISC and members of the Bar of Northern Ireland are both entitled under section 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to provide immigration services, section 11 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of Northern Ireland precludes barristers from taking instructions from persons other than lawyers who are governed by a professional body (which does not include OISC). ⦁ Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger (Case C-89/17) (2 May 2017) Questions referred Do the principles contained in the decision in Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-370/90) [1992] operate so as to require a Member State to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the non-Union unmarried partner of a EU citizen who, having exercised his Treaty right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, returns with such partner to the Member State of his nationality? Alternatively, is there a requirement to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of such residence authorisation by virtue of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC1 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (“the Directive”)? Where a decision to refuse a residence authorisation is not founded on an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant and is not justified by adequate or sufficient reasons is such decision unlawful as being in breach of Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive? Is a rule of national law which precludes an appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision of the executive refusing to issue a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member compatible with the Directive?

Приветствую Вас, Я имел в виду, что Вы к моему коллеге могли записаться. Тем не менее, я практикую уже пару десятков лет, нахожусь в UK и могу так же Вам помочь. Дайте знать, как у Вас все пройдет.

Приветствую, 1) 8 недель - это очень оптимистично. Скажу Вам сразу, что за последние 5-7 лет из сотен FLR(M) ни один из клиентов не просил помочь с подачей их заявления по почте. Экономия в Вашем случае может выйти боком, увы... 2) См. текущую анкету по тестам. Вы точно написали правильно название теста ?

Запишитесь на консультацию, получите ответы на все Ваши вопросы

02 May 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ EEA(PR) Permanent Residence applications new UK BA guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ard-form-eea-pr</noindex> ⦁ Appendix FM (UK spouse visa etc applications). Savings account situation when the joint account is held by the sponsor and his mother, for example. The Home Office insists that the account must be in the sponsor’s name, the applicant’s name, or their joint names only. The mother, therefore, went to the bank and removed her name from the joint account, thus enabling the UK sponsor to meet the financial (savings) requirement to sponsor a foreign spouse ⦁ The UK BA is introducing new bail forms and guidance: The forms are not being sent for formal consultation but for awareness however views are welcome: - B1 – is the revised bail application form - B2 – is a new addition and is the application of the person on bail to vary the conditions of bail previously granted by the Tribunal in cases where the Tribunal has not directed that future management of bail in that case should be transferred to the Home Office - B3 – is another new addition and is the application of the person on bail to vary the conditions of bail previously granted by the Tribunal in cases where the Tribunal has not directed that future management of bail in that case should be transferred to the Home Office Recent case-law ⦁ Tribunal finds Home Office has wrongly issued British passports to EU citizens and their children: Capparrelli (EEA Nationals – British Nationality) [2017] UKUT 00162 (IAC) In a controversial determination, the President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Mr Justice McCloskey, has found that the Home Office has wrongly issued British passports to hundreds or even thousands of children of EU, EEA and Swiss citizens born in the UK before 2 October 2000. ⦁ Supreme Court refuses damages to refugee wrongly prosecuted for illegal entry: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...48-judgment.pdf</noindex> The main argument that appears to have been advanced in support of the case against the CPS is that their initial decision to prosecute was in breach of the claimant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR. This is given very short shrift by the Supreme Court, as it appears to have been by the Court of Appeal and the High Court before that, all of whom find that a decision to prosecute is not capable of engaging the right to private and family life. ⦁ Smith (paragraph 391(a) – revocation of deportation order) [2017] UKUT 00166(IAC) (27 April 2017): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-166</noindex> (i) In cases involving convictions for an offence for which the person was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 4 years, the Secretary of State’s policy, as expressed in paragraph 391(a) of the Immigration Rules, is that the public interest does not require continuation of a deportation order after a period of ten years has elapsed. (ii) However, paragraph 391(a) allows the Secretary of State to consider on a case by case basis whether a deportation order should be maintained. The mere fact of past convictions is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain an order if the ‘prescribed period’ has elapsed. Strong public policy reasons would be needed to justify continuing an order in such circumstances. (iii) Paragraph 391(a) will only be engaged in a ‘post-deportation’ case if the person is applying for revocation of the order from outside the UK. Nothing in the strict wording of the rule requires the ten-year period to be spent outside the UK. However, the main purpose of deportation is to exclude a person from the UK. Any breach of the deportation order is likely to be a strong public policy ground for maintaining the order even though a period of ten years has elapsed since it was made. (iv) In ‘post-deportation’ applications involving sentences of less than four years made before the end of the ten-year period, and ‘post-deportation’ applications involving sentences of four years or more, appropriate weight should be given to the Secretary of State’s policy as expressed in the ‘Conventions exception’ and ‘sweep-up exception’ with reference to paragraphs 398-399A and 390A of the Immigration Rules.

Визы/BRP клиентов, полученные на этой неделе: - Заявление клиентки из Швейцарии, EEA Family Permit. Обратилась после отказа (ранее получил отказ с ее бывшими представителями, кто подсказал ей подаваться как невеста (!) гражданина EU. Заявление рассмотрели и выдали EEA Family Permit за 17 рабочих дней - Заявление клиентки из России, EEA Family Permit. Заявление уже рассматривали в Шеффилде, Великобритания. Заявление рассмотрели и выдали EEA Family Permiy за 15 рабочих дней - Несколько заявлений клиентов на продление EEA Family Permits (EEA(FM)) - средний срок рассмотрения сейчас 5.5. месяцев, т.е. стали рассматривать быстрее - спонсоры employed, self-employed, self-sufficient, JSA - Несколько заявлений граждан Евросоюза на Permanent Residence (EEA(PR)) - средний срок рассмотрения 3 месяца (больше, если вместе подаются заявления и non-EEA на Permanent Residence) - главные заявители были employed, self-employed, self-sufficient, JSA - Несколько заявлений граждан Евросоюза на EEA Registration Certificate (EEA(QP)) - средний срок рассмотрения 2 месяца

26 April 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Extension of the post July 2012 Discretionary Leave is usually done via the FLR(HRO) form ⦁ Extension of a UK Spouse Visa on the FLR(M) form when the UK sponsor is a Seafarer who is out of the UK for more than 183 days ? Still may be possible on the basis of the Appendix FM 1.7: 5.5.4. Where the applicant’s partner is a seafarer resident in the UK but spends most of their time working at sea and qualifies for the HMRC Seafarers Earnings Deduction (which is evidenced, for example, by a letter from their accountant or from HMRC), they will be considered as a person resident in the UK for the purposes of assessing their income from salaried or non-salaried employment. They will not be treated as an overseas sponsor returning to the UK. 5.5.11. Where the applicant’s partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work) is in salaried or non-salaried employment, this may include work undertaken overseas, subject to the couple meeting the requirement in paragraph E-LTRP.1.10 of Appendix FM that they intend to live together permanently in the UK and subject to the other requirements of Appendix FM-SE being met. ⦁ A person who overstayed their previous grant of leave under para 284 can apply for ILR (application form SETM) when they meet all the requirements. That presumes they were last granted 24 months leave under the Part 8 rules. In other words, the applications for ILR usually do not come under the general grounds for refusal

Приветствую, У них один стандарт. Тем не менее, следите за Правилами, если готовите свое заявление самостоятельно, т.к. изменения могут случиться в любой момент.

Отличные новости. Всего Вам хорошего.

Приветствую, Можете, разумеется. Ради интереса, уточните Ваш статус и от кого Вы его получили в UK, т.к. обычно в Вашем случае супруга должна быть EEA ?

21 April 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law News and Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, the UK Professional Immigration Assistance Epicentre ⦁ Expedited immigration and asylum appeals for detained appellants: <noindex>https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-comm...ned-appellants/</noindex> ⦁ An application for entry clearance is deemed to be made on the date on which payment of the relevant fee is made: Kaur (Entry Clearance – date of application) [2013] UKUT 00381 (IAC) ⦁ For the UK Spouse, Fiancee and Unmarried Partner's applications the sponsor's employment can be permanent, a fixed-term contract or with an agency: Paragraph 5.5.2 of Appendix FM 1.7: Financial Requirement ⦁ Section 94B certification: presence of adult children in the UK (19 April 2017) - this does not include a child aged over 18, as clarified by the UK BA ⦁ Registration of minors as British citizens. If the child is 13 or over, then the UK BA expects the child to have resided in the UK for at least 2 years: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ty-instructions</noindex> ⦁ Once the applicant leave UK pending decision of Administrative Review; the Administrative Review will automatically be withdrawn: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/ask-for-a-visa-administr...youre-in-the-uk</noindex> ⦁ Visitors are not permitted to switch within the UK into Settlement types visas, such as a Spouse visa: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rul...-with-a-partner</noindex> ⦁ If an Entry Clearance application for Settlement (spouse) is refused and then the decision is overturned on appeal, the successful appellant may get the so-called Leave outside of the Rules, which implies not a 5 year route to Settlement but a 10 year route to Settlement. " Immigration status requirements E-LTRP.2.1. The applicant must not be in the UK- (a) as a visitor; or ( with valid leave granted for a period of 6 months or less, unless that leave is as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner, or was granted pending the outcome of family court or divorce proceedings" Recent case-law R (on the application of RSM and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unaccompanied minors – Art 17 Dublin Regulation – remedies) [2017] UKUT 00124 (IAC) Tribunals Service link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-124</noindex> (I) The question of whether the Secretary of State has made a decision on the exercise of the discretionary power in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation is one of fact which will be determined on the basis of evidence, direct or inferential. (II) Article 17 is an integral part of the Dublin regime. The suggestion that the Article 17 discretion falls to be exercised only where the family reunification criteria in Article 8 are not satisfied is misconceived. (III) Article 17 has a role in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures and systems of the host Member State. (IV) Relevant government policy statements constitute, as a minimum, material considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the discretionary power in Article 17. The Lumba principle is also engaged. (V) The judicial assessment of the efficacy of the Dublin systems and procedures in the host Member State will invariably be fact sensitive and will take into account the overarching aims and objectives of the Dublin Regulation, including the maintenance of inter-Member State solidarity and mutual trust and respect, together with expedition. (VI) Expedition has special force in the case of unaccompanied children. (VII) The discretion to judicially determine essentially academic issues in judicial review proceedings will normally be informed by the overriding objective.

Отлично. Всего Вам хорошего !

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Приветствую, Оличные новости. Старую форму можно использовать в течение 21 дня с момента появления новой формы. Уточняю на всеий случай. Хотя если есть возможность, разумеется, лучше подавать up-to-date form.

У топикстартера теперь будет выбор :-)

Никак, т.к. оно просто не нужно. Пока не нужно.