British Lawyer

Приветствую, Может. Нужен котракт и четкое письмо от компании. Обычно так же и людей бывают другие документы - TV License, письма от врачей. В крайнем случае, свидетели могут оформить соответствующие документы. Из 100 клиентов по Вашей категории примерно у 3-4 такая ситуация. Нужна консультация - я здесь: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Обратите внимание на мою фразу по поводу правильности оформления перевода при выполнении перевода не в UK. В крайнем случае я могу заверить готовые перевод (у меня уровень MCIL, языки - UA-RUS-ENG).

"Во всем виноват Шеффилд", который теперть рассматривает и Settlement Applications, и EEA Family Permits... Мою клиентку из Росси пару недель так же "обрадовали". Подавала из России на EEA FP, из Шеффилда пришел E-mail: "...спасибо за Ваше Settlement Application (!!)...так как Вы выбрали Premium Consideration (??!!!), Вам нужно доплатить разницу (!!!!). Ох уж эта централизация...

Спсиюо за полезную информацию, поздравляю :-)

Приветствую, Итак: Семья, муж из ЕС, жена с Украины с фемели пермит, живут 2 года, сыну 1 год, родился в УК(получил гражданство ЕС). Если все по плану, то через 3 года родители могут подавать на ПМЖ? - Да, если выполняют Правила и ничего после Brexit не изменится Вопрос по ребенку: после получения ПМЖ одного из родителей ребенок может подавать на гражданство? - Да, но сейчас UK PA не совсем понимает трактовку закона, поэто у (ошибочно) требуют наличие ПМЖ у обоих родителей... Из расчета того, что фултайм садики с 3-х лет( и в некоторых случаях бесплатны), хотят отправить сына в Украину(по временной регистрации), а к 3-м привезти обратно, т.е на 2 года. В итоге вопрос, как будет происходить отсчет для ребенка, получит ли он в будущем гражданство и через сколько? - Отсутствие в UK более чем 180 дней за год обнуляет резиденцию... Имеет-ли значение его отсутствие в ЮК? - См. выше

31 March 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre ⦁ Irish nationals’ special status in UK law and other useful immigration news ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> ⦁ Irish nationals’ special status in UK law: <noindex>https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j...KiUj-W_aA6lb04g</noindex> Irish nationals have a special status in UK law which is separate to and pre-dates the rights they have as EU citizens. In short, Ireland is not considered to be a “foreign country” for the purpose of UK laws, and Irish citizens are not considered to be “aliens”. Furthermore, Irish citizens are treated as if they have permanent immigration permission to remain in the UK from the date they take up “ordinary residence” here. This special status affects Irish nationals’ rights across a number of areas, including eligibility for British citizenship, eligibility to vote and stand for election, and eligibility for certain welfare benefits. As a result, they have more advantageous rights than other EU/EEA nationals in some areas. Recent case-law ⦁ Ahmed and Others (deprivation of citizenship) [2017] UKUT 00118 (IAC): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-118</noindex> (i) While the two fold duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 are imposed on the Secretary of State, the onus of making representations and providing relevant evidence relating to a child’s best interests rests on the appropriate parental figure. (ii) A failure to discharge this onus may well defeat any argument that there was a proactive duty of enquiry on the Secretary of State in a given context. (iii) In deprivation of citizenship cases, section 55 issues arise at two stages: at the deprivation of citizen stage and at the later stage of proposed removal or deportation. (iv) As the subject of national citizenship lies exclusively within the competence of Member States, EU law has no role to play in deprivation cases: G1 v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 867 applied. (v) The Secretary of State’s deprivation of citizenship policy confers a wide margin of appreciation on the decision maker. (vi) Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not apply to deprivation of citizenship decisions as such decisions are not made under the Immigration Acts. (vii) There would be a considerable saving of human and financial resources with consequential reduced delay if deprivation of citizenship and deportation or removal decisions were to be made jointly.

Обновилась форма EEA(FM), "всего" 100 страниц (!): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...A_FM_-03-17.pdf</noindex>

Обновилась форма EEA(FM), "всего" 100 страниц (!): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...A_FM_-03-17.pdf</noindex>

Приветствую, Рад был помочь.

Приветствую, Подать на EEA Family Permit и укакзать, что Вы едете на работу в UK и берете с собой своего мужа: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/family-permit/overview</noindex>

Да, Вы правы - TLS, раньше было другое название (VF Global ?). Я их по дефолту называюю UK Visa Application Centre (UK VAC), чтобы не перепутать с UK Border Agency (UK BA). Вот ссылка для нахождения и обращения к Member of Parliament (MP) по адресу проживания Вашего спонсора в UK: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/</noindex>

+1......

29 March 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> ⦁ Do Schengen states have to issue humanitarian visas to refugees? This question was asked of the Court of Justice by a Belgian court regarding an application for humanitarian visas made by a Syrian family at the Belgian consulate in Beirut: does the Schengen Visa Code in conjunction with the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights require Member States to issue humanitarian visas to refugees? (C-638/16 PPU X & X, 7 March 2017). The Advocate General surprised everyone by finding that there was such an obligation on 7 February. A number of Member States were very anxious. But a month later the Court held that there is no EU obligation for states to issue humanitarian visas and this is a matter for national law. The legal reasoning of the Court is: 1. There is EU competence to adopt measures on humanitarian visas; 2. The EU has not (yet) done so; 3. The Schengen Visa Code only regulates short stay visas; 4. The objective of a humanitarian visa is a long stay (well longer than 90 days); 5. The Dublin III (soon to be IV) system of allocating responsibility for asylum seekers to Member States would be undermined if refugees were entitled to humanitarian visas as that would allow them to choose which Member State they wanted to go to (a rather poor argument in my opinion). So, no EU obligation but maybe the European Court of Human Rights will revisit the issue in due course.

Пожалуйста, Рад был помочь.

Уточните, Вы жена британца или EU ?

Отличные новости !

Да ,так обычно работает

Подать жалобу в UK VAC и подключить Member of Parliament где продивает в UK Ваш спонсор. Сейчас Шеффилд начал рассматривать и EEA Family Permits и PBS Applications из Россси и Белоруссии. То есть заявления становятся в общую очередь вместе с другими заявлениями. Только что видел статью, что UK BA ТОЛЬКО в свое отделение в Ливерпуле не может никак набрать 240 (!) сотрудников..

Приветствую, Да, подходит, если печать И текст нотариуса переведены. В пятницу подавал 2 заявления на продление виз жен (2 клиентки, у обоих первое продление, т.е. через 2.5 года буду подавать им на ILR) в прошлую пятницу в нашем местном PEO Solihull, где я подаю такие заявление практически каждую неделю уже лет 12. Сегодня пришли BRP карточки, как всегда, на третий день после подачи :-)

28 March 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> ⦁ IHS and Children Entry Clearance applications: a child is subject to to IHS, unless the child is granted ILE ⦁ UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) Guidance: Domestic workers in private households (24 March 2017) Guidance on applications for leave from domestic workers in private households: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...vate-households</noindex> ⦁ Failure to register under WRS v Naturalization for A8 EEA Nationals The A8 EU national may have their Naturalization applications refused is these A8 EU nationals failed to register with the WRS within the 10 years from the date of the naturalization application. There is a high chance of refusal where the non-WRS registration information has been disclosed to the Home Office, for example in an earlier Permanent Residence application ⦁ Evidence in the retained rights of residence cases Where the non-EEA spouse has difficulty obtaining evidence, the Government MAY assist the applicant. After all, if the EEA national is working then there will be records of National Insurance payments and income tax being paid. The UK BA has the power to assist, under s.40 of the UK Borders Act 2007. It generally lacks the inclination, sadly. This issue arose in the important case of Amos v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 552. The Court of Appeal left open the question of whether or how far UKBA would assist a claimant if requested to do so and how the tribunal might react if UKBA declined to assist. ⦁ 240 jobs available in Liverpool Visas and Immigration department for processing EU casework. Do not get surprised is your case is delayed: <noindex>http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverp...ilable-12782093</noindex> Recent case-law UK Visas and Immigration, Guidance: EEA case law and appeals, 27 March 2017: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/178.html</noindex> The Home Office has updated this guidance to remove the page on proxy marriages discussing the cases of Kareem [2014] UKUT 24 (IAC) and TA [2014] UKUT 316 (IAC). This follows the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Awuku v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 178 (23 March 2017) Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...law-and-appeals</noindex> ⦁ High Court declares unlawful the abolition of right of appeal for Turkish nationals In the case of R (on the application of Akturk) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 297 (Admin) a Turkish wannabe window cleaner entered the UK as a visitor and then applied for leave to remain to establish his window cleaning business under the 1973 Immigration Rules, known as HC510. These rules continue to apply to self employed Turks because of the “Ankara Agreement”, the accession treaty between the EU and Turkey to which the UK signed up on joining the EU in 1973. This treaty included a “standstill clause” which prevents the imposition of additional immigration rules over and above those in place at the time of the treaty, which for the UK means the rules for self employed Turks are those that applied in 1973. Mr Akturk made an application for judicial review. His argument was that the decision was unlawful and unfair and that he should also have been allowed a full right of appeal, as rights of appeal were available back in 1973. The application was refused because the applicant had no bank account, but the applicant was unable to open a bank account because the Immigration Act 2014 prevented him from doing so. Various points were taken against the applicant without his having an opportunity to answer them. The decision maker assumed the applicant could not speak very good English and that this would hamper the development of his window cleaning business.

Если выполняете эти услвоия - тогда нет: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-residence-card</noindex>

24 March 2017 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre ENG: Legal Centre’s Services at a glance: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> RUS: Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> ⦁ As from 1 May 2017, non-EEA nationals will need to pass a Secure English Language Test (SELT) in speaking and listening at level A2 after two-and-a-half years in the UK in order to qualify for further leave to remain on the five-year partner or parent route to settlement: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-...,82XG5F,I8S2J,1</noindex> ⦁ EEA Family Permit applications - can a certified passport copy be submitted ? The 2016 regulations have been amended to make it look like a valid passport or ID card for the EEA National is required for a family permit application as the heading of regulation 21 is Procedure for applications for documentation under this Part and regulation 12. At this time not all the UK BA caseworkers are apparently familier with this change, hence it is still advisable to lodge the original EU ID document. What about EEA Family Permit applications re: submission of the EU sponsor's certified ID ? The home office guidance called the "Processes and procedures for EEA documentation applications" – version 5.0 – 14 February 2017 at page 12 specifically states that a photocopy (NB ! certified !) of the passport or ID card is acceptable for the purposes of an EEA Family Permit application. ⦁ Draft Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017 House of Commons and House of Lords Debate hansard (22 March 2017):https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-03-22/debates/20d23f8e-c893-4012-980f-5a699d5f9ea1/DraftImmigrationSkillsChargeRegulations2017 ⦁ The House of Commons Justice Committee has published its report on the implications of Brexit for the justice system: <noindex>https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...t/750/75002.htm</noindex> Recent case law ⦁ R (on the application of Agha v Secretary of State for the Home Department (False document) [2017] UKUT 00121(IAC: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-121</noindex> For a document to be a false document under the Immigration Rules there must have been an element of dishonesty in its creation and if this is not immediately obvious in a case of an inaccurate document then that element must be engaged with in any refusal. ⦁ SF and others (Guidance, post–2014 Act) Albania [2017] UKUT 00120 (IAC): ⦁ <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-120</noindex> Head note Even in the absence of a “not in accordance with the law” ground of appeal, the Tribunal ought to take the Secretary of State’s guidance into account if it points clearly to a particular outcome in the instant case. Only in that way can consistency be obtained between those cases that do, and those cases that do not, come before the Tribunal. What it is all about ? The Home Office had not in this case applied its guidance on when it is reasonable to require a British Citizen child and her family members to leave the UK, an issue that only became apparent when the Presenting Officer drew the guidance to the attention of the Upper Tribunal at the hearing. Had the guidance been considered, the conclusion would have been that the appellants should have been granted a period of leave in order to enable the British citizen child to remain in the UK with them. The Upper Tribunal considered how the guidance affected the decision of the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal. It stated (§10): It is clear that the appellants do not have available to them a ground of appeal on the basis that the decision was not in accordance with the law such as before the amendments made to the 2002 Act by the 2014 Act they might have had. Nevertheless it appears to us that the terms of the guidance are an important source of the Secretary of State’s view of what is to be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances, and it is important in our judgement for the Tribunal at both levels to make decisions which are, as far as possible, consistent with decisions made in other areas of the process of immigration control. The Tribunal concluded (§12): But where there is clear guidance which covers a case where an assessment has to be made, and where the guidance clearly demonstrates what the outcome of the assessment would have been made by the Secretary of State, it would, we think, be the normal practice for the Tribunal to take such guidance into account and to apply it in assessing the same consideration in a case that came before it. The Upper Tribunal allowed the family’s appeal, setting aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. ⦁ R (on the application of Ayache) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 00122 (IAC): <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2017-ukut-122</noindex> 1. Although paragraph 353 does not refer in terms to certification, a decision certified pursuant to s 94b is plainly a decision on a “human rights claim” albeit a claim regarding temporary removal as opposed to removal for a more lengthy period if a statutory appeal is unsuccessful. In deciding whether to certify under s94B the respondent, and the Tribunal, cannot act in a way which is incompatible with the applicant’s Convention rights. It must follow that further submissions made and considered in accordance with paragraph 353 Immigration Rules would fall within their ambit, including the appropriateness of certification. Certification is a response to the human rights claim, albeit focused upon temporary removal rather than the main claim. 2. Paragraph 353 Immigration Rules provides the appropriate remedy where further information and evidence is sought to be placed before the respondent, rather than such material being considered in judicial review proceedings.

Статистика по недавно рассмотреным заявлениям клиентов: - EEA(QP): 2 месяца - EEA(FM): 6 месяцев - EEA(PR) для EU - 3-4 месяца - EEA(PR) для не-EU - 6 месяцев

Приветствую, Одной фразой: Да

Можно, но сложно, т.к. для получения EEA Family Permit нужно доказать совсем другое, нежели требуется для гостевой визы.