British Lawyer

Приветствую, Отличные новости, примите мои поздравления. Страховка в контексте иммиграционной категории Вашей мамы для приезда в Великобританию формально не требуется.

Приветствую, Пока таких новостей и близко нет.

Информация отличная, возможно кому-то пригодится.

Приветствую, Рад был помочь.

Приветствую, Рад был помочь.

Приветствую, Согласен. Я отвечал в контексте заданного вопроса.

Приветствую, Могут быть ньюансы. Если Вы - жена битанца, а Ваша подруга - жена гражданина EU (не британца), тогда каждой из Вас дали правильный ответ...

03 January 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> • Calculating the deadline to submit a Judicial Review. The UK BA’s relevant policy suggest that : “The team handling the JR must calculate the 3 month time limit for applying for JR from the date on which the applicant was served with the administrative review decision, not the date of the original decision on the application. Administrative review decisions are served in accordance with appendix SN of the Immigration Rules”. Major UK immigration related case-law, summer-autumn-winter 2016 Two new deportation cases from the Supreme Court: best interests plus the Immigration Rules and Article 8 • Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 59, [2016] All ER (D) 93 (Nov) (16 November 2016) In this deportation appeal, the Appellant had two British children with whom he had not had direct contact for a significant length of time. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed his appeal finding that the children had no relationship with the Appellant. At paragraph 40 Lord Kerr said that where a decision is taken about the deportation of a foreign criminal who has children residing in the UK, separate consideration of their best interests is required, especially if they do not converge with those of the parent to be deported and particularly in the case of a child with dual ethnic background. At paragraph 47 Lady Hale added, ‘it is quite correct to say that children must be recognised as rights-holders in their own right and not just as adjuncts to other people’s rights. But that does not mean that their rights are inevitably a passport to another person’s rights.’ • Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60, [2016] All ER (D) 90 (Nov) (16 November 2016) The Appellant was a failed Iraqi asylum seeker with Class A drug convictions. He was in a long-term relationship with his British fiancée and had two children with whom he had no contact. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to remit the appeal to the Upper Tribunal, however Lord Kerr dissented. The judgments analyse the interaction between the deportation rules and the appellate body considering Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Appellate decision making in Article 8 cases is governed by Huang [2007] UKHL 11, [2007] 4 All ER 15 and the structured approach. The European Court of Human Rights has given guidance on the relevant factors to take into account (Boultif v Switzerland [2001] ECHR 54273/00, Maslov v Austria [2008] ECHR 1638/03, Jeunesse v Netherlands [2014] ECHR 12738/10). he appellate body’s decision making process is not governed by the Immigration Rules, but should nevertheless involve their consideration. The appellate body must make its own assessment of the proportionality of deportation, on the basis of its own consideration of the factors relevant to the particular case, and application of the relevant law. But in doing so, it must not disregard the decision under appeal. Where the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) has adopted a policy in relation to the assessment of proportionality, set out in the Rules and endorsed by Parliament, the appellate body should give considerable weight to that policy. Lord Wilson endorsed the balance sheet approach to decision making. Dissenting Lord Kerr concluded that the application of the Rules, and their prescription of the weight to be given to the public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals, were not compatible with the balancing exercise that had to be undertaken in considering the relevant factors arising under Article 8 in a particular case Appeals • Sheidu (Further submissions; appealable decision) [2016] UKUT 412 (IAC) (7 September 2016) A Vice-Presidential panel of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) found that if the SSHD makes a decision that is one of those specified in Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 82(1), it carries a right of appeal even if the intention was not to treat the submissions as a fresh claim. Whilst it is not the job of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to determine if further submissions amount to a fresh claim (R (Waqar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] KUT 169 (IAC), [2015] All ER (D) 78 (Apr) (permission to appeal to Court of Appeal refused by Beatson LJ on 17 November 2015), R (Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2016] UKUT 133 (IAC), R (MG) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2016] IJR UKUT 283 (IAC), [2016] All ER (D) 108 (Jun) and R (Amin Sharif Hussein) v First-tier Tribunal and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 409 (IAC)) it is the job of the FTT to determine if a decision is one which falls within NIAA 2002, s 82. The UT found that the decision in the present case was a refusal of a human rights claim and therefore carried a right of appeal. • Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC) (19 August 2016) Dropping a jurisprudential bomb shell, a Vice-Presidential panel of the UT found that there is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the SSHD not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member as it did not concern a person’s entitlement to be issued with a Residence Card. The SSHD argued in this appeal that there was a right of appeal, however, following the appeal she has incorporated the decision in Sala in the new Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 SI 2016/1052. ETS: the latest developments The SSHD is now relying on more evidence, both general and specific in ETS/TOEIC cases. This was demonstrated in the latest reported ETS decision • MA (ETS – TOEIC testing) [2016] UKUT 450 (IAC) (16 September 2016) in which the President allowed the SSHD’s appeal finding that the Appellant’s claims were demonstrably false. The question of whether a person engaged in fraud in procuring a TOEIC English language proficiency qualification will invariably be intrinsically fact sensitive. The SSHD then decided to withdraw her appeal before the Court of Appeal in Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1167, [2016] All ER (D) 147 (Nov) (25 October 2016) . Beatson LJ gave a judgment which sets out at paragraphs 29-35 how the different categories of cases in the appeal system will be dealt with. • Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2002, s 117B(6) & reasonableness R (on the application of MA (Pakistan)) and others v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others [2016] EWCA Civ 705, [2016] All ER (D) 52 (Jul) (07 July 2016) Elias LJ confirms that section 117B(6) is a self-contained provision which, if satisfied, would result in Article 8 being infringed. In the assessment of reasonableness, Elias LJ favoured the argument of the appellants—that the focus was solely upon the child. However following MM (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 450, Elias LJ held that reasonableness included a consideration of the parents and their immigration history. This case concerned ‘7-year’ children and not British children. The SSHD still accepts (in extant policy documents) that it would be unreasonable for British children to leave the EU. Sponsor licence cases • R (on the application of Raj and Knoll Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 770, [2016] All ER (D) 90 (Jul), (19 July 2016) The Court of Appeal comprehensively rejects this appeal in a judicial review hallenge to the revocation of a Tier 2 sponsor licence concerning nursing homes. The Court finds that it is not necessary to decide if the SSHD can operate a ‘light trigger’ approach to revocation and whether the Court should adopt a heightened standard of review as the SSHD did not act on suspicion alone and the Appellant was clearly in breach. The Court however do sound two notes of caution at paragraph 31, with reference to R (Westech College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1484 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 69 (Jun), stressing that the SSHD must comply with her public law duties and that Tier 2 is not identical with Tier 4. Counsel for the SSHD submitted that there may be reasons in a Tier 4 case why the SSHD can act on suspicion alone Steps to avoid persecution • Secretary of State for the Home Department v MSM (Somalia) [2016] EWCA Civ 715, [2016] All ER (D) 74 (Jul) (12 July 2016) The Court of Appeal dismisses the SSHD’s appeal and makes obiter comments rejecting the SSHD’s argument that in imputed political opinion cases the court should consider the reasonableness of taking steps to avoid persecution. See paragraph 37 for a useful summary. This case hopefully sounds the death knell for discretion arguments in protection claims. Dublin III • Secretary of State for the Home Department v ZAT and others (United National High Commissioner for Refugees and AIRE Centre, intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 810, [2016] All ER (D) 22 (Aug) (02 August 2016) The Court of Appeal allowed the SSHD’s appeal against the decision of the UT President in the Calais children case, finding that the UT applied the wrong test in setting too low a hurdle for permitting the Dublin III process to be displaced by Article 8 considerations. However by the time of the appeal two of the four children had been granted refugee status and the SSHD accepted that the UK is the correct place for the asylum claims to be determined. Clearly unfounded certificates • R (on the application of FR (Albania) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605, [2016] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) (23 June 2016) In this Albanian blood feud case the Court of Appeal gave comprehensive guidance on the correct approach to certification of claims as ‘clearly unfounded’ under NIAA 2002, s 94. Beatson LJ states at paragraph 62, ‘the intensity of review in a certification case is at the more and possibly most intensive end of the spectrum to which I have referred at [48] above, but the jurisdiction remains a supervisory and reviewing one’. Davis LJ emphasised at paragraph 126 the importance of the two- stage reasoning process in play and avoiding the impermissible approach of, ‘because I have rejected the asylum claim therefore I certify as clearly unfounded’.

Тесты на самом деле относительно простые на этом уровне.

Прветствую, Если только в контексте PR - до 180 дней в году (но тогда не сможете подать на гражданство). Если с учетом того, чтобы получить гражданство без задержек - до 90 дней в году.

Вот этот клуб был популярен в свое время: <noindex>http://www.rubric.org.uk/</noindex>

Приветствую, У меня было несколько клиентов с Украины в подобной ситуации. Одна девушка начинала работу, мы показали письмо от работодателя и контракт на работу, т.е. были четкие доказательства того, что она начнет работу после приезда (хорошая должность и зарплата). В другом случае была работа по "минималке", я рекомендовал подождать 11 месяцев. Обе клиентки получии визы с первого раза. Выбор - за Вами.

По моим данным - виза в Вашем случае нужна. "Специалистом" в этом случае может выступить только визовый центр интересующей Вас страны кто, как Вы написали, уже дал Вам ответ.

Приветствую, Просто так - не надо. Надо - когда это нужно. Например, работодатель может потребовать, или учеюное завежение. Если надо, тогда просто получате certificate of comparability в NARIC. Апостили - не нужны.

Вам когда сдавать ? Могу провести с Вами бесплатную психологическую консультацию, благо есть такая возможность. Я так же профессиональный и аккредитованый психолог (Counseling - TA, CBT, PCT, Integrative; Master NLP Practitioner; Advanced Clinical Hypnotherapist) - просто раньше не упомирнал об этом на форуме.

Да, нормально. ДОказательства наличия средств не забульте приложить.

Приветствую, Да, нужно подавать оригиналы. Я обычно подаю все сразу, чтобы не было путаницы, как у Вас, т.е. никаких (!) (пока !) on-line форм для подачи заявлений типа EEAQP, EEAFM, EEAEFM, EEAPR, DRF1 и т.п. внутри Великобритании. Для RC нужна форма EEAQP (граждане EU) или EEAFM (non-EEA граждане; обычно non-EEA члены семьи) Паспорта можно отозавть обычно можно попроситт вернуть назад практически сразу после получения заявления UK BA. Вот ссылка: <noindex>https://eforms.homeoffice.gov.uk/outreach/R..._Documents.ofml</noindex> АККУРАТНО ! Там рядом кнопки ВЕРНУТЬ ДОКУМЕНТЫ и АННУЛИРОВАТЬ/ОТКАЗАТЬСЯ ОТ ЗАЯВЛЕНИЯ !

28 December 2016 - 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> • The UK guidance “Entering the UK as the holder of an Article 10 residence card” explicitly acknowledges that a permanent residence card will be valid for entry to the UK without the need for a visa: “If you are a non-EEA national who holds a valid genuine residence card, issued to you as the family member of an EEA national who is exercising free movement rights in another EEA State (i.e. not your EEA relative’s Member State of nationality) under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC (the ‘Free Movement Directive’), you may use this document for travel to the UK if you are accompanying your EEA national relative here, or joining your EEA national relative in the UK. Another document, “Permanent Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen” issued under Article 20 of the Directive is also acceptable.”: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-residence-card</noindex> • UK: An Overview – Migration Observatory Review Key Points: <noindex>http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/r...on-uk-overview/</noindex> The University of Oxford based Migration Observatory has published a new and quite interesting report on young migrants. The key points are: • Migrants tend to be young when they arrive, typically as young adults coming for work or study, or as children accompanying their parents. • Most young people whose first or main language is not English also speak good English. They tend to have lower educational achievement when they start school, but they make faster progress and so the gap is largely eliminated by age 16. • Young migrants are more likely to have degree-level qualifications than the UK born. • Employment outcomes for young migrants vary depending on their country of origin, gender, and age at arrival in the UK. EEA migrants have high employment rates but are overrepresented in low-skilled work; non-EEA migrants are overrepresented in high-skilled jobs but have lower employment rates. • International students who remain in the UK after their studies have more favourable labour market outcomes than the average across the foreign-born population. • It is too early to predict the impact of Brexit on the numbers and outcomes of young migrants living in the UK, although several future scenarios involve a shift in the balance of future migration towards people from non-EU countries. Poland, India, Pakistan, Germany and Romania make up 5 of the top 6 countries of origin for both under 30’s and the foreign-born population as a whole. The table on reasons for coming to the UK is divided by EEA/non-EEA and shows that proportionately more EEA migrants come for economic reasons and more non-EEA migrants come for study and as family or dependants. On Brexit, the report reiterates that if the UK Government requires EEA migrants in the UK to prove they are qualified persons, significant numbers of them will be excluded. The report points out that students (generally young people) are one of the groups in potential danger: People who are most likely to face difficulties meeting a permanent-residence-style requirement include the self-employed, who may find it difficult to produce the necessary paperwork; very low earners, whose work in the UK may not be deemed sufficient for them to qualify as ‘workers’ under EU rules; and students or ‘self-sufficient’ people, who are expected to have comprehensive sickness insurance in the UK but who may not have been aware of this requirement. • Albino child from Nigeria wins asylum claim: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2016/560.html</noindex> A child can be at risk of persecutory harm contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in circumstances where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk. • Upper Tribunal approach to proxy marriages conceded to be wrong by Home Office: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/1303.html</noindex> In an interesting development on the validity of proxy marriages, the Home Office has taken the view in a Court of Appeal case that the Upper Tribunal’s approach in Kareem [2014] UKUT 24 is wrong in law. The Court of Appeal has declined to simply overrule Kareem on this basis, though, and is asking the Attorney General to appoint an advocate to the court. The general rule of private international law is that a marriage which was lawful in the country in which it occurred will be recognised in other countries. Kareem goes behind this rule in holding that a marriage contracted in country A will only be recognised in the UK if it is also recognised in intermediary country B. If Kareem does prove to be wrong there will be a lot of people denied their free movement rights and put to considerable litigation expense by the approach of the Upper Tribunal. • Immigration Minister sets out Home Office approach to ETS language testing cases: <noindex>http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/...tten/44492.html</noindex> Interesting letter from the Immigration Minister to the Home Affairs Select Committee setting out the Home Office approach to and strategy on the ETS litigation.

Приветствую, Рад был помочь.

Приветствую, Если Вам муж будет экономически анктивен в Великобритании тем или иным приемлемым способом на основании Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 + Вы будете в браке, то находясь в UK с и(!) даже без визы, Вы можете "перейти" на статус non-EEA Family Member, подав анкету EEAFM.

23 December 2016 - 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> Recent case-law • Depesme and Kerrou (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-401/15 (15 December 2016) BAILII link: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2016/C40115.html</noindex> Ruling (para 65): Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a child of a frontier worker, who is able to benefit indirectly from the social advantages referred to in the latter provision, such as study finance granted by a Member State to the children of workers pursuing or who have pursued an activity in that Member State, means not only a child who has a child-parent relationship with that worker, but also a child of the spouse or registered partner of that worker, where that worker supports that child. The latter requirement is the result of a factual situation, which it is for the national authorities and, if appropriate, the national courts, to assess, and it is not necessary for them to determine the reasons for that contribution or make a precise estimation of its amount. So, the Court of Justice considered whether the step child of a frontier worker could benefit from the social and tax advantages enjoyed by workers under EU law, in this case to access student financial assistance in the same way as family members of an EEA national working in exercise of Treaty rights in Luxembourg. The Court held that the step children of frontier workers could benefit where the worker supports the child, finding that: -the child of a migrant worker must be interpreted as including the children of their spouse or their recognised partner; -there is no distinction between family members recognised for workers and those recognised for frontier workers; -determining if a worker supports the child involves a factual assessment by the national authorities, it may be evidenced by objective factors such as shared household and it is not necessary to determine to consider whether the child could support themselves, the reasons for providing support to the child, or to make a precise estimation of its amount. The Court also noted that children are presumed to be dependent until the age of 21 years. • JA (child – risk of persecution) Nigeria [2016] UKUT 00560 (IAC) Tribunals Service link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-560</noindex> A child can be at risk of persecutory harm contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in circumstances where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk • Revised Detention Services Order (DSO) 05/2014: Removal of Electronic Tags Home Office link: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ronic_Tags_.pdf</noindex> The Home Office has published a revised detention services order on the removal of electronic tags, which includes an update on the internal processes to be followed. > R (on the application of Said Aitjilal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ((EEA Regulations – deportation - reassessment -regulation 24(5)) [2016] UKUT 00563 (IAC) Tribunals Service link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-563</noindex> Neither a decision to make a deportation order nor a notice of intention to make a deportation order triggers the two year period specified in regulation 24(5)* of the EEA Regulations. The two year period begins upon the making of the deportation order itself. * Regulation 24(5): “Where such a deportation order is made against a person but he is not removed under the order during the two year period beginning on the date on which the order is made, the Secretary of State shall only take action to remove the person under the order after the end of that period if, having assessed whether there has been any material change in circumstances since the deportation order was made, he considers that the removal continues to be justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.”. • R (on the application of ZM and SK) v The London Borough of Croydon (Dental age assessment) [2016] UKUT 00559 (IAC); resource UPDATED Tribunals Service link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-559</noindex> The decision in this case has now been published by the Tribunals Service with the above citation and following head note. Head note 1. Considerable circumspection must always be deployed in responding to a claim that statistical evidence tends to prove a fact about an individual. Statistics may be more useful to decision-makers at the far ends of the scale (where they may be able to show the plausibility or implausibility of a proposition) than in the middle of the scale where they purport to show the likelihood of the correctness of a plausible proposition. 2. When considering statistical evidence it is always necessary to determine whether the population constituting the database from which the statistics are drawn is sufficiently identical to the population from which the individual is drawn. 3. The fact that all teeth are mature in the sense that all have reached Demirjian stage H is a sign of chronological maturity but is not a reliable indicator of whether an individual is more or less than 18 years old. The use of the Demirjian stages below stage H does appear to be more reliable in the prediction of age, particularly in the lower teens. 4. None of the three mandibular maturity markers so far identified appears yet to have attained such acceptance in the scientific community that it can be accepted as a reliable pointer to chronological age in the late teens in males. 5. Dental wear is not a guide to chronological age in the absence of data for a population with similar diet and masticatory habits to those of the person under examination. 6. The decision of the Court of Appeal in London Borough of Croydon v Y should not be read as prohibiting a person from refusing to undergo a dental examination. However, (i) the risk inherent in the exposure to x-rays during the taking of the dental panoramic tomograph is not likely to be a reasonable ground for refusing to allow the tomograph to be made, given the advantages stemming from ascertainment of an individual’s true age, and (ii) despite the reservations expressed herein, analysis of a person’s dental maturity may well have something to add to the process of assessing chronological age. 7. It therefore follows that generally speaking the taking of a dental tomograph should be ordered if a party seeks it, and (because of the process of dental maturity) the earlier the tomograph is taken, the more likely it is to be of assistance.

Приветствую, Я Вам ответил в другой теме, где Вы выложили список документов.

Приветствую, Моя клиентка с Украины недавно подавала. Получила визу. Список Ваших документов потенциально (!) верный. Если бы еще знать содержание документов, т.е. по названия не возможно судить о содержании документа.

Приветству, Сейчас документы клиентов возвращзаются через 6 месяцев + 7-10 дней, т.е. заявление моих клиентов рвссматривают за 6 месяце, клиенты получает положительные решения, но у UK BA занимает еще около 7 дней для того, чтобы "собрать и отправить документы". Далее, еще 2-3 дня уходи на почту, т.к. UK BA посылает документы вторым классом, заказной почтой. Если бы не праждники, Вы бы скорее всего получили документы на этой недел... Можете позвонить в UK BA и спросить их состояние Вашего дела: Enquiries from European citizens Telephone: 0300 123 2253 Monday to Thursday, 9am to 5pm Friday, 9am to 4:30pm

22 December 2016 - 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> • UK VA Visa and Operation Guidance – all in one place: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/topic/immigration-operat...rnised-guidance</noindex> • Updated UKVI Guidance on 'Search and seizure' (19 December 2016): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ional-procedure</noindex> New guidance sections concerning: • preserving crime scene • recording and referring evidence • non-statutory handling of property and baggage