British Lawyer

Понял. Считайте, что Вам повезло - такой вариант (за исключением, если Вы член ICOL и т.п.) - не приветствуется. Хотя UK BA смотрит на это сквозь пальцы. Пока.

Виза дочери клиентки (помогали с с ПМЖ (SETM), гражданством (AN) маме до этого), ребенку было 17 лет на момент подачи заявления. Шли по т.н. пути Sole Responsibility. Интересно то, что несмотря на то, что ребенок жил с мамой несколько лет в 3-й стране и было решение суда о лишении отца родительских прав, ранее было 2 отказ. Мама спешила, поэтому решили не апеллировать (сейчас очередь на рассмотение апелляции в суде - до 1.5 года !). Взяли дополнительное решение суда и подали по ускоренному варианту. Рассмотрели и выдали визу за 2 недели.

Привктствую, Не понятно как Вы могли подать на RC без перевода свидетельства о браке. Перевод на английский, заверенный, нужен. Как минимум, сделайте перевод на английский язык. С транзитом по другим странам не могу подскзать - есть вероятность, что каждая пересекаемая страна может требовать заверенный перевод на их языке...

+1............

Отличные новости. Примите мои поздравления

Где-то я этот вопрос уже видел и отвечал на него. После 22 августа подавайте, на вскидку.

Удачи Вам и всего хорошего

EEA Family Permit

UK & EEA Immigration Law Digest from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org “I can help. Anton Koval, 07791145923” - Commons Library briefing: The UK's points-based system for immigration: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7662</noindex> - A short notice inspection of the Home Office response to ‘lorry drops’: <noindex>http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-c...rops-210716.pdf</noindex> - The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Ben Gummer, today announced the code of practice to support the duty to ensure customer-facing staff can speak fluent English: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/writ...ement-july-2016</noindex>

Фактически у Вас нет выбра, если Вы находитесь не в Великобритании. То есть без теста - никак. Происходит все, как Вы описали, т.е. "готовился и сдавал текст". Тем более ресурс на русском языке...

Отличные новости, поздравляю. <noindex>Нам</noindex> обычно призодит E-mail о том, что заявление клиента рассмотрено. Хотя переодически встречаю случаи, в основном из России, когды <noindex>мы</noindex> подаем заявление клиента, и киенту звонят напрямую из UK VAC и сообщают, что визы выдана.

July 2016/5, UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, 07791145923 “Anton Koval: I can help you. Book a Skype or phone consultation with me at <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html”</noindex> •Post-Brexit immigration The results of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union on 23 June 2016 and the absence of plans on how to proceed following the vote in favour of leaving the EU have created enormous levels of uncertainty, not least for EU nationals living in the UK and British citizens at home and abroad worried about the future. Given the uncertainties, there is a shared view that EEA nationals and their family members should be advised to take steps as soon as possible to protect their immigration position by obtaining the best migration status and/or documents to which they are entitled. Suggested steps include applying for a permanent residence card or, if not eligible, obtaining a registration certificate to confirm rights of residence and retaining evidence of exercising treaty rights until eligible for permanent residence. Naturalization as a British Citizen for those with a permanent residence card may also be considered, taking into account any disadvantages such as the loss of another citizenship, particularly citizenship of an EU country, tax consequences or the loss of current EU free movement rights for third country national family members. •The Immigration Act 2016 (Transitional Provision) Regulations SI 2016 No 712 7 July 2016 <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/71...20160712_en.pdf</noindex> •New employers’ guide to right to work checks issued by Home Office 12 July 2016 The Home Office has issued new guidance to employers on right to work checks in light of the new illegal working offences under the Immigration Act 2016 coming into force on 12 July 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...s_-_July_16.pdf</noindex> •Migrant Workers:Written question - 40839, asked by Carol Monaghan MP, answered by: Nick Boles MP, Department for Innovation, Business and Skills, 27 June 2016: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/publicat...16-06-15/40839/</noindex> •Commons Library Analysis: The UK's family reunion rules: striking the right balance? House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, 23 June 2016: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7511</noindex>

Приветствую, Итак: Подскажите пожалуйста, какой обычно почтовой услугой вы пользуетесь, для отсылки документов на визу? - Royal Mail Special Delivery И какая система получения документов назад, они уведомляют как то, что была получена виза? - UK BA высылает заказной почтой (Signed For). Можете приложить pre-paid конверт И документы и виза с картой приходят раздельно? - Да. Сначала (в большинстве случаев) куртьер DX доставлят BRP карточу, а через 1-3 дня приходят документы из UK BA. Как Вам выше ответили, так же будет запрос на биометрику после подачи заявления. Я лично за подачу <noindex>в личном визите</noindex>. За посление лет 5 ни однга клиентка не просила подать по почте - все хотели резултат в тот же день. Пару раз подача в личном видите сильно помогла избежать почти гарантированного отказа, если бы подали по почте (клиента забыла укзать нарушение в прошлом, менеджер отделения подошла ко мне и упомяянуло это - вопрос был решен на месте - по почте пришел бы отказ....).

Обычно за 10-15 дней рассматривают. Сколько у Вас времени прошло ?

EEAPR/EEAQP рассматривают за 2 месяца в среднем. EEAFM/EEAEFM - около 6 месяцев

July 2016/2 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org “I can help you. Anton Koval, Legal Centre. Direct line: 07791145923” •UK Supreme Court: Residence Test judgment issued, R(on the application of The Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39, 13 July 2016 The UK Supreme Court has now issued its written judgment in R (on the application of The Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39 after unanimously allowing Public Law Project’s appeal on the ultra vires issue on the day of the hearing: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0255.html</noindex> •Draft guidance on processing asylum claims from children: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ild-instruction</noindex> •Draft guidance on family tracing: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-tracing-v1.pdf</noindex> •There is no DV application that can be made within the Rules for the spouse of a Refugee with limited leave (whether pre- or post-flight). Hence such an application will be outside the Rules. A Judicial Review (JR) succeeded on these grounds recently in Scotland: <noindex>https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgme...00-ff0000d74aa7</noindex> The relevant case on a post-flight spouse failed in the High Court – <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/2453.htm</noindex> , but is due to be shortly heard in the Court of Appeal . Applicants may submit SET(DV) application form. Also, if an applicant wants to submit a Human Rights (HR) claim the FLR(FP) form may also be submitted. Further, an applicant may claim fee exemption if the applicant is destitute Recent case-law: •Arshad and Others (Tier 1 applicants – funding – “availability”) [2016] UKUT 00334 (IAC) (i) The effect of the amendment of the regime in paragraph 41/SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules via HC628, dated 06 September 2013, is that any application for entry clearance or leave made before 01 October 2013 is to be decided in accordance with the Rules in force on 30 September 2013. (ii) Every applicant for Tier 1 Entrepreneurial status bears the onus of proving satisfaction of all of the material requirements of the Immigration Rules. (iii) The Rules stipulate that every Tier 1 Entrepreneurial applicant have available £50,000 to invest in the proposed business venture. “Available” in this context denotes that the applicant must be in a position to invest this money in his business consequential upon a positive decision of the Secretary of State. The clear import of the Rules is that the investment must be capable of being made almost immediately thereafter. (iv) A mere intention on the part of a Tier 1 Entrepreneurial applicant to invest £25,000 at the outset of the business venture, coupled with a further intention to invest the balance of £25,000 at some unspecified future date from some unspecified source, does not satisfy the Rules •Rexha (S.117C – earlier offences) [2016] UKUT 00335 (IAC) The purpose and intention of Parliament in incorporating section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was to ensure that all of the criminal convictions providing a reason for the deportation decision are to be examined within the framework provided by that section. What is required when undertaking the exercise required by sections 117C(1) to (6) is careful scrutiny of those offences which are on a person’s criminal record which have provided a reason for the decision to deport. The IDIs do not fully reflect section 117C(7) in that it is not necessarily the case that, once a foreign criminal has been convicted and sentenced to more than four years’ imprisonment, he will never be eligible to be considered under the Exceptions •Jan (Upper Tribunal: set-aside powers) [2016] UKUT 00336 (IAC) The decision of the Court of Appeal in Patel [2015] EWCA Civ 1175 entails the view that the Upper Tribunal’s powers to set aside its own decisions are limited to those in rules 43 and 45-6 of the Upper Tribunal Rules •Gurung v The Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi [2016] EWCA Civ 358 (07 April 2016) Article 8 is to be assessed as at the date of decision in Entry Clearance cases, the Court of Appeal (CA) has found: <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/358.html</noindex> •Ait-Rabah, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1099 (Admin) (12 May 2016) Another case here that serves as a warning against attempting to arrive on a visitor visa to marry an EU national while not telling the Immigration Officer that this is in fact your reason for entering the UK. Despite significant amount of documentary evidence substantiating the genuineness of the relationship at the marriage interview, the Claimant’s withholding the true reason for his coming to the UK from the Immigration Officer at Luton Airport proved fatal to his case that he did not enter the country by deception

Срок рассмотрения EEAFM сейчас под 6 месяцев, иногда немного больше.

+1.... Незнание (довольно сложного, кстати) законодательства и практики применения его государством (написано "А", нужночитать "Б").

Сегодня у Великобритании будет новый prime minister, Тереза Мей. Фунт сразу начала расти.

UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, 07791145923 • The Home Office rights of appeal guidance does not deem a Domestic Violence Settlement application as human rights claim. In order for the Settlement (Domestic Violence) application to raise a human rights (appeal) point an applicant may at the same time as lodging the SET (DV) application also lodge an FLR(FP) application with a cover letter explaining the secondary nature of the application which should be stayed pending consideration of the SET(DV). The Fee Regulations make provision for multiple applications so that only the highest fee will be payable in this scenario • Version 2.0 of the Home Office country information and guidance on Albanian blood feud asylum claims: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/public...n-and-guidance</noindex> • Asylum Process Instruction: Processing an asylum application from a child, UK Visas and Immigration, 12 July 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ld-instruction</noindex> • New employers’ guide to right to work checks issued by Home Office 12 July 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._-_July_16.pdf</noindex> The Home Office has issued new guidance to employers on right to work checks in light of the new illegal working offences under the Immigration Act 2016 coming into force today, 12 July 2016. Recent case-law • O.M. v. Hungary (no. 9912/15), [Article 5 ECHR], 5 July 2016 The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights has given its ruling in the case of O.M. v. Hungary (no. 9912/15) regarding the immigration detention in Hungary of an Iranian LGBT asylum seeker. In June 2014, O.M had arrived in Hungary, where he was apprehended and subsequently applied for asylum. On 25 June 2014, the Office of Immigration and Nationality ordered for the applicant to be detained, referring to the fact that his identity and nationality had not yet been clarified and to the risk of absconding. He was then arrested and placed in a detention facility, where he was kept for 58 days. The Court reiterated that Article 5 ECHR protects individuals against arbitrary interference by a Member State with his or her right to liberty. Any deprivation of liberty will only be lawful when it falls within the exhaustive list of permissible grounds listed in the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 ECHR. In addition, detention measures must be prescribed by law and be of a sufficient quality to protect from arbitrariness. The authorities must further carry out a proportionality and necessity analysis, which includes an analysis of alternative means of detention. In this assessment the Court considers the following points relevant: the nature of the obligation arising from the relevant legislation, including its underlying object and purpose; the person being detained and the particular circumstances leading to the detention; and the length of the detention. In the circumstances of the applicant’s case, the Court found that Article 5 § 1 ( ECHR could not serve as a legal basis of the immigration detention. The Court therefore unanimously ruled that the applicant’s detention was arbitrary and unjustified, in violation of Article 5 § 1 ECHR. In particular, the Court found that the Hungarian authorities had failed to make an individualised assessment and to take into account the applicant’s vulnerability in the detention facility based on his sexual orientation. The Court emphasised special care the authorities should exercise when deciding on deprivation of liberty in order to avoid situations which may reproduce the plight that forced asylum seekers to flee in the first place. • A.M. v. the Netherlands (no. 29094/09), [Articles 3, 13 ECHR], 5 July 2016 The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights has given its ruling in the case of A.M. v. the Netherlands (no. 29094/09) concerning the removal of an asylum seeker to Afghanistan in light of the prohibition of torture and of inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to an effective remedy. The case relates to an Afghan national of Hazara origin, who had applied for asylum in the Netherlands. The applicant stated to fear persecution and ill-treatment in Afghanistan for his membership of the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan and for his involvement in the Revolutionary Guard and the party Hezb-e Wahdat. The Minister for Immigration and Integration rejected his asylum application based on the application of Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Regional Court of The Hague rejected his subsequent appeal. The applicant did not submit a further appeal with the Administrative Division of the Council of State. Instead, the applicant submitted an application to the ECtHR claiming that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, if expelled from the Netherlands to Afghanistan. He further claimed that he did not have an effective remedy on this point as safeguarded by Article 13 ECHR. Notably, the Court rejected the argument by the government that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 ECHR. The Court observed that a further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division does not have automatic suspensive effect. This is however required under Article 13 taken together with Article 3 for a domestic remedy to be considered effective. Nevertheless, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 13 ECHR in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR. Under Article 13 ECHR, Member states are not required to set up a second level of appeal. As the appeal with the Regional Court of the Hague in asylum cases did have an automatic suspensive effect, the applicant had at his disposal an effective remedy for challenging the rejection of his asylum application. In addition, the Regional Court was empowered to rigorously examine any risks of treatment contrary to Article 3. The Court further held that the applicant had also failed to demonstrate that there are substantial risks for believing that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Court observed that the applicant had remained in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the communist regime without encountering any problems with the Taliban. Moreover, the applicant had not been sought-after by the party Jamiat-e Islami or attracted any negative attention from any governmental or non-governmental body or any private individual in the country on account of his communist past or his activities for Hezb-e Wahdat. The Court also considered that there would not be a real risk of ill-treatment for people of Hazara origin. Lastly, there was no general situation of violence to the extent that there would be a real risk of ill-treatment for the general return of people to Afghanistan.

У меня было такое чувство. Спасибо за уточнение. На прошлой неделе продлял в нашем местном PEO заявление 2-х клиенток, одна с Украины, другая из Убекистана. Автор, подавайте с 22 числа тогда. Дата подачи заявлений внутри страны считается дата отсылки Royal Mail (курьером - DHL и т.п. - с даты получения !). Удачи.

Я обычно так делаю, ни разу не было проблем. Но выбор за Вами.

Дата подачи заявления за рубежем считается дата ОПЛАТЫ за анкету в on-line.

UK & EEA Immigration Law updates from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, 07791145923 •The labour market for nurses in the UK and its relationship to the demand for, and supply of, international nurses in the NHS, Institute for Employment Studies, report commissioned by Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), 7 July 2016. This report examines the recruitment of non-European Economic Area (EEA) nurses at a trust level in the NHS in England: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...urses-in-the-uk</noindex> •EU Nationals in the UK, Opposition Debate in the House of Commons, Hansard 6 July 2016, column 937: <noindex>https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-...ationalsInTheUK</noindex>

Вчера получил approval для клиента и его семьи. Помогали с Entry Clearance, с продлением T1G, далее получением ILR и вот теперь - с заявление на гражданство для него, жены и детей. Заявления 2хAN + 2xMN1. Рассмотрели за 2 месяца.