British Lawyer

Приветствую. <noindex>Рад был помочь</noindex>.

:-) +1.................. PS C Наступающими.

Заявление нескольких non-EEA клиентов, EEAPR - рассмотрели за 6 месяцев, сегодня выслал клиентам BRP с Permanent Residence. Такие вот новогодние подарки от <noindex>Legal Centre</noindex> клиентам.

19 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> • Nine people have been convicted of running an immigration fraud linked to English tests for foreign students: <noindex>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38225712</noindex> 2 Lords European Union Committee Reports: Brexit & financial services AND future UK–EU security & police cooperation (16 December 2016) Lords Select European Union Committee Report - Brexit: financial services - 9th Report of Session 2016-17 - published 15 December 2016 - HL Paper 81 <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...com/81/8102.htm</noindex> Lords Select European Union Committee Report - Brexit: future UK–EU security and police cooperation. 7th Report of Session 2016-17 - published 16 December 2016 - HL Paper 77 <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...com/77/7702.htm</noindex> • Lords European Union Committee Report: Brexit & financial services (16 December 2016) Lords Select European Union Committee Report - Brexit: financial services - 9th Report of Session 2016-17 - published 15 December 2016 - HL Paper 81 <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...com/81/8102.htm</noindex> • Joint Committee on Human Rights 5th report on the human rights implications of Brexit (19 December 2016) <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...ublished-16-17/</noindex> • The Home Office on Delay to work start date - Tier 2 ICT Migrants According to the UK BA, the paragraph 23.9 does not apply to Tier 2 ICT migrants, that is, the “The start date given on the CoS must be the date that the migrant will start working for you. It is possible to put this start date back by a sponsor note via your SMS account, but the start date cannot be put back by more than 4 weeks. If the migrant is unpaid for more than 4 weeks from the original start date you cannot continue to sponsor them.” • According to the UK BA, an employer who accepts ILR in an expired passport would not have a statutory excuse if an employee is found to be working unlawfully • Colleagues are reporting reported delays in FLR (FP) applications, including waiting 16 weeks to receive a biometric invitation letter • In one colleague migrant’s case, the Home Office, which had previously registered the child as British on the basis of the father’s British citizenship, is now asking for a DNA test. The parents never married and the father is now estranged. A colleague noted that the High Court had previously held that where the Home Office had issued a passport, the Home Office cannot go back on its decision on the basis of speculation. There must be cogent reasons

Пожалуйста. <noindex>Рад был помочь</noindex>.

Примерно так, хотя у мое клиента, у кого сначала не прошла оплата, после переподачи EEAFM рассмотрели за 4 месяца. Сейчас <noindex>помогаю его родственникам</noindex> с заявлением в UK BA, тоже подаем EEAFM. В этот раз мы <noindex>от себя </noindex>оплату делаем. У нас есть проверенные способы - чек - работает 100%.

Приветствую, Я искрене надеюсь, что все будет в порядке. Хотя переодически работаю с отказами, когда человек начинает разговор о причине отказа именно с такой фразы: Это правильно, когда муж берет ответственность на себя.

16 December 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you now: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> Мы можем Вам помочь, здесь и сейчас: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> • New UKVI Guidance on application for UK visa as Tier 1 Investor (15 December 2016): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...tier-1-investor</noindex> • UKVI Policy paper on Home Office response to the Independent Chief Inspector's report 'An inspection of the implementation of the Immigration Act 2014 provisions for tackling sham marriage August to September 2016' (15 December 2016): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...age-august-to-s</noindex> The Independent Chief inspector of Borders and Immigration has published an inspection report on the implementation of the 2014 ‘hostile environment’ provisions for tackling sham marriage. With effect from 2 March 2015, the Immigration Act 2014 extended the period of notice for couples intending to marry in order to give the Home Office time to investigate the genuineness of the relationship of those it suspected may be sham. Couples who fail to comply with a Home Office investigation are not permitted to marry. Compliant couples who are assessed as sham may marry, but the Home Office will seek to refuse any future application to remain in the UK based on that marriage. The inspection found that the initial implementation of the new provisions was problematic, indicating a lack of proper planning: • the Home Office did not communicate effectively with registrars about its new way of operating, where it no longer attended register offices and prevented ceremonies from proceeding • new processes were cumbersome and weakened by their reliance on fragmented IT and by the limited operational support received from local enforcement teams, with the result that cases were not being determined within the extended time limit. From January 2016, the Home Office piloted a revised process aimed at overcoming these problems, which it rolled out nationally from June. This late change meant that the inspection was unable to test fully the efficiency and effectiveness of the new provisions and the ICIBI will re-inspect this area when more evidence of how they are working is available. This is the third of the Home Office’s ‘hostile environment’ provisions that the ICIBI has inspected in 2016. As with the provisions in relation to UK driving licences and bank and building society current accounts, the ICIBI found that the Home Office was not doing enough to measure either its own performance or the impact of the sham marriage provisions on voluntary returns, enforced removals and on the ‘pull factor’ for individuals considering settling illegally in the UK. Without this, any meaningful evaluation of the ‘hostile environment’ strategy will prove extremely difficult. Mr Bolt made five recommendations for improvement to the Home Office. • Commons Library Research Briefing: Brexit and data protection (15 December 2016): <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7838</noindex> • Updated Guidance from UKVI: Immigration Act: part 1 - labour market and illegal working (13 December 2016): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...illegal-working</noindex> Updated: New impact assessment on tackling exploitation in the labour market. • Updated UKVI guidance on 'Non-compliance and absconder process' (15 December 2016): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...nder-management</noindex> • Supreme Court Cases R (on the application of Mirza) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) – UKSC 2015/0209 and R (on the application of Iqbal) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) – UKSC 2015/0210 and R (on the application of Ehsan) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) – UKSC 2015/0211 (14 December 2016) Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 extends a person’s leave to remain pending Determination of an application to vary the period of leave, so long as the application is made before the original leave has expired. All three appeals before the Court raise the issue of how section 3C applies where an application is made in time, but for some reason is procedurally defective. Sections 50 and 51 of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2006 enable the Secretary of State to lay down in immigration rules procedural requirements for applications, including provision for the payment of a fee and the consequences of failure to comply. Similarly, sections 5 and 7 of the UK Borders Act 2007 provide the power to make regulations regarding the provision of biometric information and the effect of failure to comply with these. Mr Iqbal was granted entry clearance in January 2007 to come to the UK as a student, later extended to 30 April 2011. On 19 April 2011 he applied for further leave to remain as a student, although unaware that the fee had recently increased, he paid the old, lower fee. His application was rejected as invalid for that reason, and his leave expired. Mr Mirza entered the UK under a student visa which was valid until 31 March 2009. His application to extend leave was rejected for non-payment of the fee when the Secretary of State was unable to take the £295 application fee from his bank. In Ms Ehsan’s case she had entry clearance until 28 December 2011. She applied for further leave on 23 December 2011 and was contacted by the Secretary of State, requesting that she make an appointment to provide certain biometric information. She was told by letter dated 26 March 2012 that her application was returned as invalid because of her failure to make and attend an appointment for providing biometric information. A new application made on 3 April 2012 subsequently failed. All three appellants applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions, and following refusal of permission to apply for judicial review in the High Court/Upper Tribunal, permission to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed their joined appeals on the basis that section 3C did not extend to an application which was not validly made in accordance with the rules. JUDGMENT The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeals. . Lord Carnwath gives the judgment, with which the other Justices agree. Judgment: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...09-judgment.pdf</noindex> Press summary: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...ess-summary.pdf</noindex> • Case law: Special Immigration Appeals Commission and High Court Decisions (14 December 2016) Case law: England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decision case MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 3162 (Admin) (09 December 2016) <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3162.html</noindex> Case law: Special Immigration Appeals Commission case: B v Secretary Of State For The Home Department [2016] UKSIAC SC_09_2005_2 (12 December 2016) <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2016/SC_09_2005_2.html</noindex> • Lords Select Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee 18th Report published on First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2016 (SI 2016/1149) (15 December 2016) <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...leg/84/8402.htm</noindex> First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2016 (SI 2016/1149) These Regulations annul the approximately six-fold increase in the fees for an application to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, made by SI 2016/928 in September. Our 9th Report drew attention to the original Order because of the timing and the degree of opposition expressed. This Order returns application fees to the previous levels with immediate effect stating “in view of all the representations received on the fee levels the Government has decided to take stock and reconsider these specific increases to make sure that the interests of all tribunal users and the taxpayer are being balanced properly”. • Code of Practice (English Language Requirements for Public Sector Workers) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1157) Section 77 of the Immigration Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”) provides that public authorities must ensure that anyone who works for them in a public-facing role speaks sufficiently fluent English (or Welsh where appropriate) to do their job effectively. Section 80 of the 2016 Act provides that in determining how to comply with this duty public authorities must have regard to a Code of Practice which this instrument brings into force. The Code includes provision about: the standard of spoken English required to be met by a person working for a public authority ( or under contract to them); - ensuring that the requirements are proportionate to the role performed; - the action available to such a public authority where such a person does not meet that standard, including remedial action; - the procedure to be operated by a public authority to enable complaints to be made about breaches of the duty; and - how the public authority is to comply with its other legal obligations as well as the duty.

Приветствую, - Нет, не должен быть. Достаточно документа с подписями - Подойдет (+ wage slips + bank statements)

Приветствую, Тут интересная ситуация. Вообще-то с точки зрения общих законов UK Ваше имя должно быть вписано в Council Tax, т.к. иначе недоплачивается одноименный налог. Я встречал отказы на основании этого (EU law, не визы жен британцев). В чем причина того, что Вы не внесены в Council Tax ? В принципе, может обойтись, если других документов достаточно.

15 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> Lords Select Committee on the European Union publishes their report on Brexit: acquired rights 10th Report of Session 2016-17 - published 14 December 2016 - HL Paper 82 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The rights of EU citizens and their families 1. The rights of an EU citizen to live and work in any EU Member State, and to gain a permanent right of residence in that State after five years, are some of the most fundamental in EU law. From them have derived all of the additional citizenship rights that are necessary for nationals of EU Member States, and their families, to conduct their lives in an EU Member State of their choosing on equal terms with the nationals of that State. (Paragraph 21) 2. That said, we received evidence suggesting that many EU nationals who have been in the UK for over five years may not be able to prove that they meet the criteria for permanent residence as an EU citizen. For example, those who are not economically active, including students, will have to show that they have had comprehensive sickness insurance cover for five years in the UK, notwithstanding that the National Health Service is freely available. We call on the Government to explain whether this consideration will influence the decision it makes on the cut-off point for deciding which EU nationals in the UK are given a permanent right to reside after Brexit. (Paragraph 22) 3. We also call on the Government to publish statistics on the number of EU nationals in the UK who have obtained proof of a permanent right to residence, and the number of applications that are pending. (Paragraph 23) The loss of EU citizenship rights 4. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the consequences of the loss of EU citizenship rights for EU nationals in the UK, and for UK nationals in other EU Member States, will be severe. (Paragraph 31) 5. EU nationals in the UK will be subject to national immigration rules, which restrict the rights of migrants far more than EU citizenship law, and which have been described as Byzantine in their complexity by the Court of Appeal. (Paragraph 32) 6. While UK nationals in EU Member States will also be subject to the national immigration law of their host State, they will enjoy additional protection as ‘third-country nationals’ under EU immigration law (except in Denmark and Ireland). The additional protection is, however, a considerable reduction on the migrant rights afforded to EU citizens. (Paragraph 33) The concerns of EU nationals in the UK 7. It is clear, and unsurprising, that the uncertainty caused by the referendum has given rise to deep anxiety among EU nationals, including Polish, Romanian and French nationals, in the UK. The Government is under a moral obligation to provide certainty and legal clarity to all EU nationals working, living and studying in the UK, who contribute so significantly to the economic and cultural life of the UK. It should do so urgently. (Paragraph 47) 8. There is also a forceful economic case for the Government to act quickly. EU workers play an important role in filling gaps in the labour market that cannot otherwise be filled by UK workers. This is as true for highly skilled job markets, such as medical or financial services, as it is for lower skilled or seasonal job markets. The longer their future is uncertain, the less attractive a place to live and work the UK will be, and the greater labour market gaps will be. (Paragraph 48) 9. The referendum result has contributed to a rise in xenophobia towards EU nationals. We deplore this. Question marks about the rights of EU nationals to live in the UK may be fuelling xenophobic sentiment, as the Bulgarian Ambassador suggested. We call on the Government to explain what action it is taking to counter xenophobia towards EU nationals. (Paragraph 49) The concerns of UK nationals living in other Member States 10. The anxiety of EU nationals in the UK is matched by that of UK nationals in other EU States—the evidence we received of their distress is compelling. Many are pessimistic that the life that they had planned in another EU Member State will still be possible. Residence rights, employment rights, access to health care and the capacity to finance retirements feature large among their concerns. Just as the Government is under an obligation to provide certainty to EU nationals resident in the UK, so it is under an equal moral obligation to seek to provide certainty and legal clarity to all UK nationals working, living and studying in other EU States. It should do so urgently. (Paragraph 54) The protection of EU rights as acquired rights 11. It is evident that the term ‘parties’ in Article 70 (1)( of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties refers to States, not to individuals or companies. In no sense, therefore, can this provision be said to safeguard individual rights under EU law that will be lost as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal, in the absence of a negotiated settlement. (Paragraph 60) 12. The evidence we received makes very clear that the doctrine of acquired rights under public international law will provide little, if any, effective protection for former EU rights once the UK withdraws from the EU. The scope of acquired rights is limited to certain contractual and property rights which, even were they to coincide with EU rights, are highly unlikely to be enforceable. Reliance on the doctrine before the referendum as a means of protecting EU rights was therefore misplaced. (Paragraph 71) 13. Litigation is always possible, however, where valuable rights have been lost. There is, therefore, a strong incentive for the Government to address the underlying causes of such potential litigation in the withdrawal agreement. (Paragraph 72) The protection of EU rights under alternative sources of law 14. In the absence of a negotiated settlement on which EU rights will be maintained, the ECHR offers a more likely route for successful litigation post-Brexit than the international law doctrine of acquired rights. A greater number of EU rights will overlap with ECHR rights, and the ECHR has an effective national enforcement mechanism in the Human Rights Act 1998. (Paragraph 88) 15. The two most relevant ECHR rights are the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol. Article 8 is likely to be invoked in cases of deportations of EU nationals post-Brexit (should such a policy ever be implemented), to seek to prevent the deportation taking place. Article 1 of the First Protocol will be invoked to protect EU rights to tangible and intangible property that overlap with the scope of “possessions” under that Article. (Paragraph 89) 16. We are not confident that the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR would prevent the status of EU citizenship from being removed as a consequence of Brexit. The ECHR case law on the protection of citizenship to which we were referred relates to national citizenship. It is arguable whether EU citizenship can be conflated with national citizenship for this purpose: Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU makes clear that EU citizenship “shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship”. (Paragraph 90) 17. There is a risk that the loss of EU citizenship could lead to unlawful discrimination between UK nationals, EU nationals and third-country nationals in the UK post-Brexit, where an ECHR right is engaged, as it could for other UK nationals in other EU Member States. We expect this risk of unlawful discrimination to lead to a high volume of litigation, unless it is addressed in the withdrawal agreement. (Paragraph 91) 18. The overlap between EU and ECHR rights should, however, be kept in context: the full range of EU rights is not covered by the ECHR. In cases where there is no overlap the ECHR will not provide any protection. This appears to be the case for many of the EU rights about which UK nationals living in other Member States are worried, such as the right to work, to study, to retire, to access affordable healthcare and other public services, and to equal treatment. (Paragraph 92) 19. We question whether the UK’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs) will provide effective alternative protection for many EU rights which have been lost as a consequence of the EU’s withdrawal from the EU. We do so for two reasons. First, the scope of BITs is limited to commercial investor rights, with the consequence that the overlap with individual EU rights is unlikely to be wide. Secondly, where there is an overlap with EU rights, EU law would appear to take precedence over a BIT. (Paragraph 98) 20. Litigation is always possible, however, where valuable rights have been lost. There is, therefore, a strong incentive for the Government to address the underlying causes of such potential litigation in the withdrawal agreement. (Paragraph 99) Contents of the withdrawal agreement 21. We strongly agree with the unanimous view of our witnesses that the withdrawal agreement concluded under Article 50 should set out the EU rights that are to be maintained post-Brexit. This approach will give rise to the greatest legal certainty for EU nationals in the UK, and UK nationals in other EU States. This should be the most important consideration. (Paragraph 104) 22. In the event that the UK exits the EU without a withdrawal agreement,the most effective safeguard for maintaining the citizenship rights of EU nationals in the UK will be national law. It is, therefore, vital that the Great Repeal Bill that the Government plans to introduce in 2017 ensures that the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, which implement the EU Citizens Directive, will remain in force unchanged on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, with or without a withdrawal agreement. To do so will provide legal certainty to EU nationals in the UK. As importantly, it would mean that other EU Member States are more likely to ensure similarly full protection for UK nationals in their States, who will have lost their status as EU citizens, in the event that a withdrawal agreement is not agreed. (Paragraph 105) 23. The nature of the forthcoming negotiations is such that absolute reciprocity in all matters cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, we believe that absolute reciprocity should apply and be guaranteed in respect of citizenship rights. (Paragraph 108) 24. Ultimately, it will be for the Government and its EU partners to determine which EU rights they wish to safeguard in the withdrawal agreement. (Paragraph 120) 25. In our view EU citizenship rights are indivisible. Taken as a whole they make it possible for an EU citizen to live, work, study and have a family in another EU Member State. Remove one, and the operation of others is affected. It is our strong recommendation, therefore, that the full scope of EU citizenship rights be fully safeguarded in the withdrawal agreement. (Paragraph 121) 26. It is clear to us that, in terms of numbers and of complexity, it would be impractical to require EU nationals resident in the UK to apply for indefinite leave to remain under the UK’s Immigration Rules. We draw the Government’s attention to the recommendation of one of our witnesses that a new status of permanent residence should be given to EU nationals in the UK post-Brexit. It would also be open to the Government to grant them the existing status of indefinite leave to remain, while waiving both the usual charges and the requirement to comply with any eligibility criteria other than that they were EU citizens resident in the UK. This would avoid establishing discriminatory status and categories of rights between EU Citizens and other non-UK nationals permanently resident in in the UK post-Brexit. Whichever approach the Government chooses, we recommend that the criteria it applies for permanent residence for EU nationals post-Brexit should be reasonable, flexible, and cost-effective. (Paragraph 122) Enforcement of the withdrawal agreement 27. We recommend that the rights which are safeguarded in the withdrawal agreement should be frozen as at the date of Brexit; we cannot see any other approach that would provide for legal certainty. (Paragraph 136) 28. The majority of the safeguarded rights are likely to be reciprocal with EU rights, which means that they will have to be applied so far as possible uniformly. EU law will evolve over time, and national legislation and its interpretation by the courts will have to evolve accordingly. We recommend that a reciprocal mechanism be established to ensure that UK law can take account of relevant developments in EU law, and, importantly, that EU law can take account of relevant developments in UK law. (Paragraph 137) 29. The experience of the EEA States and Switzerland in this regard will be instructive. The 2006 extradition agreement between the EU, Norway and Iceland on extradition procedures, for example, may be a helpful precedent. The fact that the duty to keep under review the case law of the respective parties is reciprocal is particularly important: Norway and Iceland have to take account of developments in the case law of the CJEU, but so too the EU has to take account of developments in the case law of the courts of Iceland and Norway. (Paragraph 138) The case for a unilateral guarantee or early negotiation 30. We urge the Government to change its stance and to give a unilateral guarantee now that it will safeguard the EU citizenship rights of all EU nationals in the UK when the UK withdraws from the EU. The overwhelming weight of the evidence we received points to this as morally the right thing to do. It would also have the advantage of striking a positive note for the start of the negotiations, which will be much needed. (Paragraph 147) 31. Even if the Government refuses to give a unilateral undertaking ahead of the negotiations, there is a strong case to be made for agreeing EU citizenship rights as a preliminary and separate element of the negotiations as soon as Article 50 is triggered. EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in other EU Member States should not have to wait until the end of the negotiations to find out whether they have a future in the EU States where they have decided to live. <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...com/82/8202.htm</noindex> Lords Debate on Brexit: European Union Citizenship (13 December 2016) Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to protect the European Union citizenship status of United Kingdom citizens who were born after the United Kingdom joined the European Union on 1 January 1973. <noindex>https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-12...nionCitizenship</noindex>

Пожалуйста. <noindex>Рад был помочь</noindex>.

Приветствую, 5-6 месяцев, ближе к 6. Учитывая, что фактически лавинообразно растет количество заявлентий, могут быть задержки. В 2008 году срок рассмотрения EEA2 мог занимать и 2 года...(нелегалы).

Приветствую, Владение домом не влияет на заявление. Упомянутый документ мог быть использован в контексте Вашего вопроса как доказательство совместного проживания. Если есть другие документы, доказывающие, что Вы живете вместе, тогда все в порядке.

Из недавних заявлений <noindex>моих</noindex> клиентов: - Sole Representative, Settlement application: 6 месяцев - Naturalization (средний срок, жены британцев, граждане EU, бывшие "тирщики") -2.5 месяца - EEAFM (легализация) - 5 месяцев - EEAPR - 5.5 месяцев

Report recommends cut off date for new arrivals from EU A hardline report chaired by prominent Leave campaigner Gisela Stewart into the status of EU nationals in the UK has recommended a cut off date for new arrivals from the EU, likely to be April 2017, and a massive registration programme for existing EU residents. EU citizens arriving after the cut off date would be subject to the full force of UK immigration law on Brexit, presumably meaning they would become unlawfully resident on that date. The report, which has been co-ordinated by organisation British Future, assumes a total end to EU free movement law in the UK, “hard Brexit”, departure from the European Economic Area and Single Market and expulsion on non qualifying EU residents and family members. Essentially, it proposes a UKIP future for the United Kingdom. The report recommends that the Home Office simplify the application process for permanent residence. Applications would be compulsory and would involve cross checking against multiple government databases rather than reliance on documents propduces by the applicant. The method proposed looks to me fundamentally incompatible with EU law, and involves imposition of a good character test and an application for ILR rather than permanent residence. How this could occur while the UK remains a member of the EU and EU citizens therefore continue to enjoy free movement rights is unclear, but it does not look very well thought through. The report at least proposes a five year “transition” for EU nationals who were qualified persons or had permanent residence at the cut off date. This would allow those people to bring their family members to the UK under the equivalent of EU rules, which are far more family-friendly than the extremely harsh UK immigration rules. Entry of parents and grandparents is basically banned under UK rules but remains feasible under EU rules, and under EU rules there is no real minimum earnings requirement for sponsoring a foreign spouse, unlike the £18,600 requirement under UK rules. Those with permanent residence would have their status converted to “bespoke” Indefinte Leave to Remain (ILR) under the UK immigration rules. What “bespoke” means or how it would differ from “normal” ILR and be distinguished from it when it is called the same thing is not explained. The report is not an official or Government report but was co-ordinated by British Future. How likely the recommendations are to find their way into UK Government policy is questionable. This is particularly so as the report in effect abandons tens or hundreds of thousands of existing residents of the United Kingdom who are currently lawfully present in the UK because of EU free movement laws. The report focuses on “qualified persons”, meaning those who are working, self employed, self sufficient with comprenehsive health insurance or students with comprehensive health insurance. It does not address long term residents from the EU who are not qualified persons (for example the non-working EU national spouse of a British citizen who does not have comprehensive health insurance) nor does it address third country family members from outside the EU but who have or had a relationship with an EU national in the UK. The report itself states that only 64% of EU nationals resident for over 5 years have qualified for permanent residence. If it is assumed that there are 2.8 million EU nationals in the UK, that means over 1 million have not qualified. Many therefore probably never will. The report assumes these people will be expelled at the end of a five year transition period, in what would be the biggest mass expulsion of population from this country since 1290, when Edward I infamously ordered the Jews of England into exile. Given that no-one in their right mind was proposing removing qualified persons, one wonders what the point of the exercise was. The report dodges the very hard questions faced by Ministers and civil servants.

14 December 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you now: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> Мы можем Вам помочь, здесь и сейчас: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> • Report recommends cut off date for new arrivals from EU A hardline <noindex>report </noindex>chaired by prominent Leave campaigner Gisela Stewart into the status of EU nationals in the UK has recommended a cut off date for new arrivals from the EU, likely to be April 2017, and a massive registration programme for existing EU residents. EU citizens arriving after the cut off date would be subject to the full force of UK immigration law on Brexit, presumably meaning they would become unlawfully resident on that date. The report, which has been co-ordinated by organisation British Future, assumes a total end to EU free movement law in the UK, “hard Brexit”, departure from the European Economic Area and Single Market and expulsion on non qualifying EU residents and family members. Essentially, it proposes a UKIP future for the United Kingdom. The report recommends that the Home Office simplify the application process for permanent residence. Applications would be compulsory and would involve cross checking against multiple government databases rather than reliance on documents propduces by the applicant. The method proposed looks to me fundamentally incompatible with EU law, and involves imposition of a good character test and an application for ILR rather than permanent residence. How this could occur while the UK remains a member of the EU and EU citizens therefore continue to enjoy free movement rights is unclear, but it does not look very well thought through. The report at least proposes a five year “transition” for EU nationals who were qualified persons or had permanent residence at the cut off date. This would allow those people to bring their family members to the UK under the equivalent of EU rules, which are far more family-friendly than the extremely harsh UK immigration rules. Entry of parents and grandparents is basically banned under UK rules but remains feasible under EU rules, and under EU rules there is no real minimum earnings requirement for sponsoring a foreign spouse, unlike the £18,600 requirement under UK rules. Those with permanent residence would have their status converted to “bespoke” Indefinte Leave to Remain (ILR) under the UK immigration rules. What “bespoke” means or how it would differ from “normal” ILR and be distinguished from it when it is called the same thing is not explained. The report is not an official or Government report but was co-ordinated by British Future. How likely the recommendations are to find their way into UK Government policy is questionable. This is particularly so as the report in effect abandons tens or hundreds of thousands of existing residents of the United Kingdom who are currently lawfully present in the UK because of EU free movement laws. The report focuses on “qualified persons”, meaning those who are working, self employed, self sufficient with comprenehsive health insurance or students with comprehensive health insurance. It does not address long term residents from the EU who are not qualified persons (for example the non-working EU national spouse of a British citizen who does not have comprehensive health insurance) nor does it address third country family members from outside the EU but who have or had a relationship with an EU national in the UK. The report itself states that only 64% of EU nationals resident for over 5 years have qualified for permanent residence. If it is assumed that there are 2.8 million EU nationals in the UK, that means over 1 million have not qualified. Many therefore probably never will. The report assumes these people will be expelled at the end of a five year transition period, in what would be the biggest mass expulsion of population from this country since 1290, when Edward I infamously ordered the Jews of England into exile. Given that no-one in their right mind was proposing removing qualified persons, one wonders what the point of the exercise was. The report dodges the very hard questions faced by Ministers and civil servants. • Thought in the Points Based System (PBS) The Points Based System is notoriously complex and indecipherable. I have been working with the PBS categories and the pre-PBS categories, such as HSMP, Innovator and the like for a very long time. The first HSMP Rules were easy to understand, than it started to change. I believe this was simply incompetence on the part of Home Office officials unable to communicate in plain English and ill equipped to design to and then adapt to the constantly shifting requirements of Ministers. Having observed multitude of unnecessary changes, judicial reviews, appeal and the like, my current view is that the complexity of the system is now deliberate; an opportunity has been grasped and the Points Based System is now used as an actual barrier to all immigration rather than as a gateway to the “right” migrants. It was even extended to family migration in the form of Appendix FM with accompanying Appendix FM-SE with accompanying policies and guidance. There is in effect a financial filter; only those employers or migrants able to afford <noindex>top quality legal representation</noindex> can successfully navigate the labyrinth.

Вот как выглядит моя профессиональная (MCIL) декларация переводчика о правильности перевода украинских переводчиков (да, даже такое делать приходится !): NB Я так же ставлю сво личную печать с моим номером MCIL и подписываю каждую страницу Мои перевеоды/заверения принимаются везде. Клиентам удобно - ну нужно обращаться за заверение куда-либо еще. Translator’s Declaration === I, Anton Koval, am a Russian/Ukrainian/English translator, - Member of the Chartered Institute of Linguists (membership number 025252), -Holder of the Specialist Diploma in teaching of the English and German languages from the Cherkassy Boghdan Khmelnitsky State University (Ukraine) DO HEREBY CERTIFY that these documents, translated by the following translators: • xxxxx xxxxxx • xxxxx xxxxx • xxxxxx xxxxxxxx and verified by me, is a true translation from Russian into English of: • Certificate of Birth, issued to xxxxx xxxx, dated the 25th January xxxx, number II-TO № xxxxxxxx • Certificate of Birth, issued to xxxxx xxxxx, dated the 22nd June xxxx, number ЯE xxxxxxx • Certificate of Death, issued to xxxxxx xxxx, dated the 3rd November xxxxx, number I-TO № xxxxx • Certificate of Marriage, issued to xxxxx xxxx, dated the 10th June xxxx, number II-TO № xxxxxx • Pension Certificate, issued to xxxxx xxxx, dated the 4th March xxxxx, number xxxxx I confirm that the translation give a true and accurate rendering of the original document. 17 November 2015

Приветствую, Итак: Возник еще один вопрос: подавали ли вы housing inspection на вторую визу?- не нужно Если дом в кредите, обязательно ли подавать документы из банка Morgage Statements? - Разве что как доказательство совместного проживания

По данной категории можете дослать документы, главное, чтобы Вы успели !

Отличные новости. Поздравляю. P.S. Список документов может разнится для подобного заявления другого человека.

Приветсвую, Да, нужно, за исключением копий анкет.

Какое у Вас гражданство ? Если не EU, Вам не какое аненство не подходит, т.е. агенства по трудоустройству не имеют права оформлять визы. Разве что найти работодателя ? Последнее возможно, если Вы - ученый, т.е. за Ваши охотятся т.н. head hunters.

Приветствую, Такие агенства - ругулярные поставщики клиентов. Почти всегда <noindex>я могу помочь</noindex>, но иногда это не возможно (например, отказ по para 320 - отказ на 10 лет - такой отказ можно "обойти" заявление по категории Appendix FM или EEA FP). Путаница возникает из-за слудующего: "IELTS for UKVI assesses all four language skills and is accepted by UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) at levels B1 to C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). IELTS Life Skills assesses Speaking and Listening at CEFR level A1 and at CEFR Level B1." Ссылка на первоисточник (December 2016). <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-language-tests</noindex>

Опубликован объедененный Settlement Guidance для всех "Тирщиков" - Tier 1/2: • Updated UKVI guidance on Tier 1 type Settlement applications: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...d-system-tier-1</noindex>