British Lawyer

Приветствую, 1. Ждать решение из UK BA 2. Девушка что-то напутала.

Прри подаче на Украине, в случае, если человек "прописан" и живет в Крыму - фактически/практически проблем не бывает. Все зависит от того, что и как подает заявитель.

Приветствую. Эту самую BRP и посылайте. Я своим клиентам как адвокат заверяю BRP, паспорта и т.п., поэтому отсылаем только заверенные копии.

Требования, в принципе, те же самые.

Шансы как у всех - выполняются правила - виза получается. У Вас в чем конкретно сомнение ?

27-09-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Domestic workers: The Immigration (Variation of Leave) Order 2016 (SI 2016/948) 26 September 2016: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/94...20160948_en.pdf</noindex> Into effect 6 October 2016. Provides that where a ‘competent authority’ determines that it has ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that a person who has been granted limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an overseas domestic worker, or a private servant in a diplomatic household, is a victim of modern slavery, the person’s leave is extended until 28 days after the competent authority notifies the person of its conclusive decision as to whether or not the person is such a victim. •Two recent cases in the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal have clarified when a worker might in EU law retain his or her status as a worker during a period of unemployment. The cases are KS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 269 AAC and MB and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 372 AAC. •In the case of Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal : Albania) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal has ruled that there is no right of appeal against a decision by the Home Office to refuse a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member: The headnote says: “There is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member.”

Пока стабильно 6 месяцев для non-EEA (EEAFM), около 4-5 месяцев для EEA (EEAPR) и 1.5 месяца для EEAQP.

Спасибо, что вспомнили о моем сообщении ранее. Одним предложением, с октября планируется повышение уровня английского языка для продления "визы жены", т.е. вместо A1 нужно будет показывать более высокий уровень A2. "Non-EEA national partners and parents on the family route will need to pass a speaking and listening test at level A2 in order to qualify, after two-and-a half-years in the UK, for further leave to remain on the five-year partner or parent route to settlement."

22 September 2016. UK & EEA Immigration Law updates from the Legal Centre: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> We can help you •EEA law v self-sufficiency. Please note that (page 37 of the Modernised Guidance (EEA nationals - qualified persons) confirms that an applicant can rely on the income of a spouse to show adequate resources for self-sufficiency. However, the wording in the Modernised Guidance specifically mentions that they must have 'regular access' to this income. lt appears, therefore, that having access to the income means the applicant being able to access it from their own account or from a joint account •European passport return service, UK Visas and Immigration, 21 September 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/e...-return-service</noindex> The European passport return service is provided by local authorities or nominated premium service centre. A participating local authority can photocopy your EEA or Swiss passport and forward a copy along with your checklist and application to the Home Office on your behalf. Your passport will then be available for you to use while your application is being processed. Alternatively, you can make an appointment and take your passport and documents to the premium service centre in Belfast or Glasgow. The service is available by appointment only and you must attend your appointment within 5 working days of submitting your online form. The service fee can be obtained by contacting the local authority who will also confirm times appointments are available. The Home Office may contact you for further information after your application has been submitted. Using the European passport return service does not guarantee the success of the application and the local authority cannot provide any advice. This service will not ensure that your form has been correctly completed and correct supporting documents submitted. Please note that this service does not extend to the family members as well as that this service is merely a way of retaining your passport and not in any way a quality service of thoroughly checking your application (see <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Immigration-Applica...n-Service.html)</noindex> before submission to the UK BA •First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2016, Statutory Instrument 2016 No. 928 (L.16), 15 September 2016: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/928/pdfs/uksi_20160928_en.pdf

Я в прошлом лет 5 в Бирмингеме прожил.

Из недавних заявлений клиентов, время рассмотрения со дня подачи до получения BRP/визы/карты: • EEAQP – 1.5 месяца • EEAFM (различные нарушения в прошлом) – 10 месяцев • Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) – 5 месяцев • EEAPR – 6 месяцев

Если есть все документы, подать на визу и получить решение можно за буквально 3 часа в личном визите: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html</noindex>

21 September 2016. UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” Recent case-law •R (on the application of Sharif Hussein) v First-Tier Tribunal (para 353: present scope and effect) IJR [2016] UKUT 00409 (IAC), 19 September 2016 Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-409</noindex> (1) Lord Neuberger’s judgment in R (ZA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 926 is an authoritative pronouncement on the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgments in R (BA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKSC 7. (2) Parliament’s actions in amending paragraph 353 (fresh claims) of the immigration rules in the light of the changes to the appeal regime made by the Immigration Act 2014, together with its decisions:- (i) to amend, but without bringing into force, the prospective amendments made in 2006 to the definition of “human rights claim” in section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (ii) to amend the existing definition of “human rights claim” in the light of the 2014 Act, show that Parliament intends paragraph 353 to be used to determine whether further submissions constitute a fresh human rights claim for the purpose of “new” section 82 of the 2002 Act. (3) If, in the post-2014 Act world, Parliament had intended paragraph 353 to apply only to the Secretary of State’s certification decisions, then Parliament would have made this plain. If the applicant were correct that paragraph 353 currently has only such a limited ambit, commencing the 2006 amendments to section 113 of the 2002 Act would not enable the Secretary of State to make any significantly greater and/or coherent use of paragraph 353. (4) Parliament’s decision to leave in place the expressions “submissions” and “if rejected” in paragraph 353 are indicative that they continue to serve the function of permitting the Secretary of State to categorise cases as between those that do not amount to a claim at all and those which, though rejected, amount to a fresh human rights claim for the purposes of “new” section 82. (5) The Secretary of State is not the sole arbiter of whether, in any particular case, she has made a decision to refuse a human rights claim, as opposed to refusing to treat submissions as amounting to a fresh claim. •Sheidu (Further submissions; appealable decision) [2016] UKUT 000412 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-412</noindex> If the SSHD makes a decision that is one of those specified in s 82(1), it carries a right of appeal even if the intention was not to treat the submissions as a fresh claim. •Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 00411 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-411</noindex> There is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member. •VOM (Error of law – when appealable) Nigeria [2016] UKUT 00410 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-410</noindex> In a statutory appeal, the right of appeal under s 13 of the 2007 Act does not arise until the Upper Tribunal has completed the process required by s 12. •FA (Libya: art 15©) Libya CG [2016] UKUT 00413 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-413</noindex> 1. The question of whether a person is at art 15© risk in Libya should, until further Country Guidance, be determined on the basis of the individual evidence in the case. 2. This decision replaces AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) in respect of assessment of the art 15© risk. •KS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 269 (AAC) <noindex>http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tri...ew.aspx?id=4880</noindex> The Tribunal considered the meaning of ‘compelling evidence’ under Regulation 6(7) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 which requires that a person provides ‘compelling evidence’ that they are seeking employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged in order to have a right to reside as a jobseeker for more than the relevant period (in most cases 91 days). The Tribunal held that this means no more than the requirement for evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is continuing to seek employment and has genuine chances of being engaged. To interpret the phrase as meaning that a higher standard of proof is required would be contrary to EU law. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MB (JSA) (and linked cases) [2016] UKUT 372 (AAC) <noindex>http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tri...ew.aspx?id=4931</noindex> This is a longer and more complex decision but some of the significant points held include the following: 1. Although the fact that someone has been looking for work unsuccessfully for a period of 6 months or more is a relevant factor in determining whether they have a genuine chance of being engaged, it is only one factor among others. 2. The requirement to provide 'compelling' evidence of a genuine chance of being engaged 'cannot raise the bar' of what constitutes a genuine chance of being engaged beyond ‘chances that are founded on something objective and offer real prospects of employment within a reasonable period’.(paras 49-60, especially para 57). 3. Given that evaluating a ‘chance’ necessitates a degree of looking forward, events likely to occur in the near future may be relevant to a claimant’s ‘genuine chance of being engaged’. (para 47) •Housing Benefit: change in rules on temporary absence if absence outside UK The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 were amended by The Housing Benefit and State Pension Credit (Temporary Absence) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 with effect from 28 July 2016. In brief, the amendments mean that if a person is temporarily absent from their home because they are outside the UK, they will cease to be treated as occupying the property during that temporary absence and therefore cease to be entitled to Housing Benefit after 4 weeks in most cases. Prior to 28 July 2016, it was possible to claim Housing Benefit for up to 13 weeks in most cases. There continue to be some limited exceptions. •The European Scrutiny Committee assesses the legal and/or political importance of draft EU legislation Recently it has considered proposals from the European Commission on reform of the EU asylum system, of which there have been two sets. The Commission presented its first set of proposals for asylum reforms in May, which were subject to two scrutiny reports. These proposals aimed to: •streamline the existing Dublin procedures •include a new “fairness mechanism” designed to ensure a more equitable distribution of asylum seekers amongst Member States. •transform the European Asylum Support Office into the EU Agency for Asylum, giving it a stronger mandate to monitor the overall functioning of the common European asylum system •develop the EU’s asylum database (Eurodac) into a broader migration management tool. In July 2016, the EU Commission published its second set of proposals for changes to asylum law, including: •Revise EU rules on who qualifies for international protection •Establish a fully harmonised common EU asylum procedure •Revise EU rules on reception conditions for asylum seekers •Establish a new EU framework for the resettlement of individuals in need of international protection In its report published today, the European Scrutiny Committee recommends that the Government’s opt-in decisions should be debated together in Parliament. It identifies questions which it considers to be relevant to the opt-in debates. An overarching concern is whether the reforms proposed achieve the Commission’s objectives of establishing “a more humane, fair and efficient European asylum policy” and ensuring that the EU “takes on its fair share of the global responsibility to provide a safe haven for the world’s refugees”. The Committee also look further ahead, inviting the Government to consider the impact that harmonised EU rules on asylum would have on the UK once the UK has left the EU. <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...ublished-16-17/</noindex>

Согласен. Без offer 60 дней так же ничего не дадут...

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

19 September 2019 UK and EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre. We can help you: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> • Huge increase (in some cases as far as 6 fold) in the immigration appeal costs The Government response to the consultation on proposals to reform the fees charged in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, PLUS Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, 15 September 2016 The consultation paper was published on 21 April 2016 and the closed on 3 June 2016. “The response announces our intention to: - increase the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a decision on the papers from £80 to £490; - increase the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for an oral hearing from £140 to £800; -introduce a fee of £455 for an application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal; - introduce a fee of £350 for an application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal in that Tribunal (where the application to the First-tier Tribunal has been refused); - introduce an appeal fee in the Upper Tribunal of £510; and - make extensions to the existing exemptions and remissions scheme that applies in the First-tier Tribunal and extend these to apply to fees for appeals in the Upper Tribunal. Full details of the fees changes are available at the following links: <noindex>https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-comm...r-tribunal-fees</noindex> <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations...um-chamber-fees</noindex> All customer facing IT systems have been amended to reflect these changes. Any applications received prior to the fee change but returned because of an error on the form will attract the new fees”. • Brexit and the Norway Option: the EFTA Court upholds Surinder Singh for EEA nationals, E-28/15 Jabbi 26 July Where an EEA national, pursuant to Article 7(1)( and Article 7( of Directive 2004/38/EC, has created or strengthened a family life with a third country national during residence in an EEA State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive will apply by analogy where that EEA national returns with the family member to his home State. • Government Response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's Second Report of Session 2016–17: The work of the Immigration Directorates (Q4 2015) (16 September 2016) The Government responds to the recent criticisms made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its scrutiny of the work of the Home Office on: • Visa applications • English Language Tests • Asylum cases • The Migration Refusal Pool and curtailment of leave • Immigration detention • Foreign national offenders (FNOs) • Voluntary removals <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...f/675/67502.htm</noindex>

Цены на госпошлину за апеллцяии возрастут в 6 раз. The Government response to the consultation on proposals to reform the fees charged in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, PLUS Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, 15 September 2016 The consultation paper was published on 21 April 2016 and the closed on 3 June 2016. “The response announces our intention to: - increase the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a decision on the papers from £80 to £490; - increase the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for an oral hearing from £140 to £800; -introduce a fee of £455 for an application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal; - introduce a fee of £350 for an application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal in that Tribunal (where the application to the First-tier Tribunal has been refused); - introduce an appeal fee in the Upper Tribunal of £510; and - make extensions to the existing exemptions and remissions scheme that applies in the First-tier Tribunal and extend these to apply to fees for appeals in the Upper Tribunal. Full details of the fees changes are available at the following links: <noindex>https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-comm...r-tribunal-fees</noindex> <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations...um-chamber-fees</noindex> All customer facing IT systems have been amended to reflect these changes. Any applications received prior to the fee change but returned because of an error on the form will attract the new fees”.

Верно, но не до конца. 28 дней уже лет так несколько стали 60 днями.

Отличные новости. Ветка - ILR. Можете и первоисточник изучить (сайт UK BA). Практичеси- собирайте те же документы, т.е. старые по проживанию и новые за последующие 2.5 года.

Добрый день, Власти интересует доход на основании Appendix FM Financial, т.е. на основани поданного отчета в налоговую. У Вас детальные вопросы, я могу на них ответить: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Личный выбор человека, возможно ?

Обратите внимание, что сейчас нужно сканировать и загржать копии utility bills с нового адреса.

Хотедось бы увидеть разрешение бывшей супруги для новой супруги :-) Обычно сопроводительного письма от мужа с объяснением всех тонкостей достаточно.

Приветствую, Tier 2 General позволяет менять работодателя. У меня был клиент кто минимум 3 раза менял работодателя.

UK & EEA Immigration Law updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you" 1.The proposed (not yet implemented) potential new terms and conditions of leave granted to refugees and persons in need of humanitarian protection The proposal explained is a default setting that refugees and persons granted humanitarian protection get three years leave in the first instance, with a possibility of extension of three years at a time and to apply for settlement after 10 years, subject to passing the life and language tests which must be met by other applicants for settlement. It is further proposed that these refugees and persons be given rights to refugee family reunion after two years, rather than immediately. Those who would continue to get five years leave and then a right to settlement, would be: - The resettled - Sur place claimants (persons in the UK when the situation for them in their country of origin changes so that they would risk persecution on return) - Those who have been trafficked but claim asylum as soon as possible -Those who travel directly to the UK and claim immediately on arrival (references to Article 31 of 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and s 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 -Those transferred to the UK under the take charge provisions of Dublin (family unity etc). Although the three year grant would be the default setting, those it would be targeted at particularly would be: - Those who enter the UK unlawfully - Those who claim after they have overstayed - Those who have passed through a safe third country - Those who make self-serving claims 2.Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) calls for an improvement of the Home Office’s family reunion applications handling, press release, 14 September 2016 Home Office too ready to reject family reunion applications when applicants fail to provide sufficient evidence of their eligibility Withdrawal of Home Office commissioned and funded DNA tests identified as a major reason for first time application refusals The ICIBI report invites the Home Office to recognise the impact of avoidable delays on applicants David Bolt, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), calls on the Home Office to better manage family reunion applications and show more understanding of the circumstances and difficulties faced by applicants coming from areas of conflict. Under existing rules, family members of individuals who have been granted asylum in the UK, or five years’ humanitarian protection, can apply to be reunited with their family. The ICIBI inspection found that, since the Home Office stopped commissioning and funding DNA tests to establish family relationships, the number of family reunion applications rejected for failure to produce sufficient evidence has doubled for certain nationalities. Inspectors also found that family reunion applications are often refused rather than being deferred to allow applicants to produce the missing evidence. This means that individuals who are eligible for family reunion are delayed in receiving entry clearance. While it accurately reflects the rules, Home Office guidance to applicants should be more helpful in identifying the evidence they are likely to need to provide in order for their applications to succeed. Mr Bolt asks decision makers to consider all available evidence when processing family reunion applications and, in line with Home Office rules, to take exceptional circumstances and compassionate factors into account when making their decision. David Bolt said:” The family reunion report identifies a number of areas where the Home Office needs to improve. Applicants, stakeholders and others need to be reassured that the Home Office recognises the particular challenges facing many family reunion applicants, and that it manages applications not just efficiently and effectively, but thoughtfully and with compassion”. 3.Revised Detention Services Order 12/2012 Room sharing risk assessment (RSRA): www.gov.uk/government/publications/room-sharing-risk-assessment-rsra