British Lawyer

Письмо от мужа нужно. Вы задаете детальный вопрос, <noindex>ответ на который можно дать зная все детали</noindex>. Под общий шаблон серьезные вещи не делаются. Местные агенства Вам вряд ли сильно помогут. Хотя бывают редкие исключения, больше похожие на удачу в лотерее.

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь. quote name='larisa73' date='27.8.2016, 6:35' post='1127260'] Спасибо

Вчера детально и не один раз общались. Не заутайтесь в теоретических v практических советах. Надеюсь, в этот раз все у Вас получится.

Однозначно. Или сразу же получите отказ на 10 лет за обман по параграфу 320(7)(а) !

Заявление гражданки Грузии, проживающей в Греции, EEA Family Permit. Рассмотрели и выдали визу за 4 дня.

UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://www.legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - We can help you •The ETS English language tests, yet again. Evidence had come to light that ETS tests in the case of these two men may have been taken by a proxy. Therefore their leave to remain in the UK was curtailed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Home Office, quashing the decisions of the Upper Tribunal, which alongside the First-Tier Tribunal had accepted the two men’s arguments on the facts and law on appeal from the decision: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/615.html</noindex> •The President has issued an important determination on the correct approach to multiple applications and appeals from family members, specifically a parent or parents and a child or children with 7 years of residence: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2016/108.html</noindex> Generally, where a family with a child or children who have lived in the UK for 7 years or more apply for leave to remain on the basis of paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv), there is an increasingly strong argument that the applications should normally be granted if the period of residence is satisfied and there is no bad behaviour by the applicants, they are well settled and integrated and therefore it would not be reasonable for the child or children to have to start over with their life again in another country. The longer the child has lived in the UK, the stronger the case will be. Other factors working in an applicant’s favour would be lawful presence by the parents and residence as an older child. •The Home Office has issued a new updated version of its policy on section 3C and 3D leave: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/3c-and-3d-leave</noindex> Section 3C and 3D leave is an automatic type of leave created by an amendment to the Immigration Act 1971 so that where a person makes a valid application to extend his or her leave to enter or remain and the application is refused, that person’s immigration status would be extended during any waiting time for the application to be decided or for an appeal to be decided. Except that is not quite true any more. Section 3C was amended by the Immigration Act 2014 and no longer protects those who make an application and appeal it where the decision was made by the Home Office before the person’s leave expired. Where the decision is made after the person’s leave expired, section 3C continue to work its magic •Periods of study for a qualification below degree level, are capable of being counted as time spent studying at degree level for the purpose of paragraph 245ZX(ha), if the period of study is taught at degree level, and when the qualification itself is added to other periods of study, resulting in the award of a degree: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2016/181.html</noindex> •An EEA appellant must prove a proxy marriage is lawful in country in which it was contracted and in the relevant EEA Member State: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2016/180.html</noindex> •The Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2016, SI 2016 No. 847, 23 August 2016. This statutory instrument brings into effect the guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, and comes into force on 12th September 2016: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/84...20160847_en.pdf</noindex>

Въезд по старым правилам = до ILR 2 года. Можете записать на Skype или телефонную консультацию со мной, чтобы все четко выяснить: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Присоединяюсь, +111111111111

Для UK BA - нет. Другие страны могут требовать.

Приветствую, Если Вы согласны с обвинением, то отказ правомерен. Вы, кстати, прислали только общие пункты отказа. Обычно UK BA так же присылает детальные и дополнительные пункты. Запишитесь ко мне на Skype или телефонную консултацию по следующей ссылке, постараюсь Вам помочь: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> Мне будет нужна полная копия отказа.

Для Entry Clearance это пока проходит, для заявлений внутри UK BA - нет. Зачем спорить. Делайте как считаете нужным, если не боитесь потерять UK BA fees.

То есть, получается что он въехал по старым правилам и мог бы подавать через 2 года. Зачем тогда продляли ?

До 2-х недель я сейчас наблюдаю (до момента получения решения).

Отличные новости, поздравляю.

Бывают задержки на пару недель...

Если ему нужно было продлевать, похоже он идет по пути 5 лет ? Вообще, когда он ПОДАВАЛ на визу ?

UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Despite the current UK Government’s commitments to reduce the use of detention and the reform agenda outlined by Government, there is an expansion taking place at the Gatwick airport sites. Brook and Tinsley will expand by 100 places over this summer: <noindex>http://detentionforum.org.uk/another-100-b...ion-by-stealth/</noindex> •Tzur case on comprehensive sickness insurance, 19 August 2016 The Appellant is an Israeli national and the family member of a Greek student (her ‘sponsor’). The couple purchased a BUPA health insurance policy prior to submitting application for residence documentation. The Policy expressly stated that it did not cover pre-existing medical conditions. The sponsor had an asymptomatic ‘systolic heart murmur’ and the Appellant was an ex-smoker who had smoked for a period of three years in the past. It appears to have been understood that there are no insurance policies in the UK which would cover pre-existing medical conditions. The court was provided email correspondence between Appellant and BUPA which stated that the conditions suffered by the Appellant and her Sponsor were not considered to be excluded conditions. The First-tier Tribunal upheld the Home Office refusal of residence documentation. At paragraph 31, immigration judge Moxon concludes that it was not disproportionate for the Home Office to refuse the application for EEA residence documents here because the Appellant and her Sponsor did not evidence income sufficient to pay for medical treatment (presumably out of pocket for conditions not covered by insurance) and failed to provide a medical assessment which concluded that they did not have ‘...any medical conditions that are as yet asymptomatic but may develop to require treatment and medication in the near future’. The rationale appears to have been that the couple did not satisfy the Comprehensive Sickness Insurance requirements because they did not definitively disprove by way of medical assessment that they had no other pre-existing medical conditions which at some point in the future would not be covered by medical insurance and would therefore render them an unreasonable burden on social assistance. The case will be heard in Upper Tribunal on 1 September 2016.

Можете, но это перебор. Хотя бы не весь счет закрашивайте !

•Application for change of conditions of leave to allow access to public funds if your circumstances change: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...mstances-change</noindex>

2 недели если заявление подано как Priority. Около 3-х месяцев если по стандартному пути

И Вам всего хорошего :-)

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Пожалуйста. Кстати, по этому делу - SET(BUS) - сегодня пришел и запрос на сдачу биометрики, и CoA - все в одном письме.

Сейчас у UK BA завал и даже говорят (я лично разговаривал с UK BA) что даже биометрику могут теперь ждать до 6 месяцев (верится с тродом). Фактически биометрика сейчас приходит через 1 месяц +/-

09 August 2016. UK & EEA Immigration Law News from the Legal Centre. We can help you: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> •Visas and immigration operational guidance, Chapters 23 to 44: operational enforcement activity, Immigration Enforcement and UK Visas and Immigration, 29 July 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...cement-activity</noindex> •Guidance: Contact details for immigration compliance and enforcement teams, UK Visas and Immigration, 28 July 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...forcement-teams</noindex> •From the UK BA. “… premium appointments may be used even if the date of the premium appointment is after the expiry of the visa, provided the online application was submitted and Home Office fee paid before expiry of visa. This means that applicants will not be overstaying in such a situation. It is important to note that this only applies for ONLINE applications (and where Home Office fee is paid at same time of submitting online application) not for ones where there is a paper form. If a paper form is required then it is the date of the premium appointment that is the date of the application as defined in the rules” •The Tier 4 Pilot for those applying to study a Masters course for 13 months or less (at the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Bath or Imperial College London), 5 August 2016 (extra 2 months, 6 months in total, to stay in the UK on completion of their course): <noindex>http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/studentnews/815/C...-4-pilot-scheme</noindex> and <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...e_July_2016.pdf</noindex> •Asylum instruction: Sexual orientation issues in the asylum claim – updated guidance. The Asylum Policy Instruction, ‘Sexual orientation issues in asylum claims’, has been updated and republished on the government website at the following location: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...he-asylum-claim</noindex> Recent case-law: •U.N. v. Russia (no. 14348/15), [Articles 3, 5 § 4], 26 July 2016 The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights has given its ruling in the case of U.N. v. Russia (no. 14348/15). The case relates to a Kyrgyzstan national and ethnic Uzbek, who currently lives in Russia. The applicant arrived in Russia after the mass disorders and inter-ethnic clashes in Kyrgyzstan in 2010. Wanted by the Kyrgyz authorities on charges related to these clashes, including the kidnapping and murder of two law-enforcement officers, he was arrested in Russia in January 2014 and placed in detention. His detention extended on a number of occasions and he was released in July 2015. Following an unsuccessful appeal against the extradition to Kyrgyzstan and a rejection of his asylum application, U.N complained to the ECtHR. He claimed violations of his rights under Articles 3 and 5 § 4 ECHR. The Court reiterated that it had previously held that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would face a real risk of exposure to treatment proscribed by Article 3 ECHR if returned to Kyrgyzstan (e.g. Khamrakulov, Mamadaliyev, Kadirzhano and Mamashev, Gayratbek Saliyev, and Makhmudzhan Ergashev). It hereby referred to the attested widespread and routine use of torture and other ill-treatment by law-enforcement agencies in the southern part of Kyrgyzstan in respect of members of the Uzbek community, the impunity of law enforcement officers, and the absence of sufficient safeguards for the applicants in the requesting country. As such, the diplomatic assurances and monitoring mechanism relied on by the Russia government were insufficient. In addition, the applicant’s criminal conduct did not overturn the absolute prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR. As the applicant belonged to a vulnerable group, the Court found that he would face a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 ECHR, if returned to Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that it had previously found a violation of the ECHR where an applicant was unable to bring about a judicial review during a fixed period of detention. This would also be the case if changes in the fixed period of detention would directly affect its lawfulness. In the present case, the applicant was unable to apply for a judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention for almost four months despite the circumstances that justified the review. The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR.