British Lawyer

Если я правильно Вас понял, что Вы подали заявление EEAFM. Такие заявления рассматриваются в течение 6 месяцев. Фактически - 5.5 месяцев. Даже перенос...

Приветствую, Да, возможна. Скажу даже больше. У меня были случаи, когда заявления подавали "дети" за 25 с full-time. Но они все жили с родителями, т.е. выполняли одно из главных требований: to be a member of the same household.

Получение британского гражданства автоматически не лишает Вас украинского гражданства.

Если живет с Вами и нет создала отдельную семью - обычно не оказывают.

- заявление клиентки, Retained Right of Residence: 6 месяцев, ждем BRP - заявление клиента, AN (после Tier 1 и ILR): 5 недель, ждем приглашение на церемонию

Recent case-law update from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, 077 911 45 923 Katsonga (“Slip Rule”; FtT’s general powers) [2016] UKUT 00228 (IAC) 1. The ‘Slip Rule’, rule 31 of the First-tier Tribunal Procedure Rules, cannot be used to reverse the effect of a decision. 2. Following the repeal by the 2014 Act of subsections (3) to (6) of s 86 of the 2002 Act, the First-tier Tribunal appears to have no duty or power to ‘allow’ or ‘dismiss’ an appeal. Adult dependent relative rule - BritCits judgment, case note and further steps Mitting, J has given judgment in the BritCits challenge to the Immigration Rules on Adult Dependant Relatives. The BritCits challenge was dismissed on all three grounds, but on the issue of whether the rule was compatible with Article 8 ECHR, Mitting, J indicated that he felt constrained to dismiss due to Aiken LJ’s judgment in MM (Lebanon) and if he had not been bound by that authority he would have declared the rule to be unlawful as disproportionate. He granted permission to appeal to BritCits, who have issued the Appellant’s Notice, and the issue is pending before the Court of Appeal. The judgment of Mitting, J is, however, very significant for practitioners in itself as its approach to Article 8 ECHR opens up the possibility of the success of a significant number of adult dependant relative cases pursuant to Article 8 ECHR notwithstanding refusal under the adult dependant relative rule. We are grateful to Duran Seddon of Garden Court Chambers for his detailed case note which is attached at the above resource.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 12 May 2016, and was published on the 17 May 2016 as the 2016 Immigration Act: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/1...nacted/data.htm</noindex>

Спасибо за теплые слова. Рад был помочь.

UK & EEA Immigration Law Digest from the Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org, 077 911 45 923, 0330 001 0342 Recent case-law: •R (On the Application Of Ufot) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 298. A remarkable Court of Appeal case, which was heavily criticized by Vos LJ with the arguments like” “Technical”, “deeply unattractive”, “disingenuous”, “singularly lacks merit”, “ridiculous”, “inappropriate”, “extraordinary. One of the major blunders of the UK BA and, surprisingly, IAC, in the last years •R (on the application of Spahiu and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Judicial review – amendment – principles) IJR [2016] UKUT 00230 (IAC) (i) The amendment of a judicial review claim form preceding the lodgement of the Acknowledgement of Service does not require the permission of the Tribunal. Such permission is required in all other instances. (ii) In deciding whether to exercise its discretionary power to permit amendment, the Tribunal will have regard to the overriding objective, fairness, reasonableness and the public law character of the proceedings. The Tribunal will also be alert to any possible subversion or misuse of its processes. (iii) Every application to amend should be made formally, in writing, on notice to all other parties and paying the appropriate fee which, with effect from 21 March 2016, is £255. (iv) Where an amendment is permitted in the course of a hearing the Tribunal may, within its discretion, not require compliance with the aforementioned requirements. (v) There is a sharp distinction between an application to amend grounds and an application to amend the Respondent’s decision under challenge: R (HM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR – Scope – Evidence) IJR [2015] UKUT 437 (IAC) applied. •MS (Trafficking – Tribunal’s Powers – Art. 4 ECHR) Pakistan [2016] UKUT 00226 (IAC) The determination in this case has now been reported with the following head note: (i) Having regard to the decision of the ECtHR in Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia [2010] 51 EHRR 1, Article 4 ECHR, which outlaws slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, encompasses also human trafficking. (ii) Trafficking decisions are not immigration decisions within the compass of the 2002 Act, with the result that judicial review provides the appropriate mechanism for direct challenge. (iii) Tribunals must take into account, where relevant, a decision that an appellant has been a victim of trafficking. (iv) Where satisfied that a negative trafficking decision is perverse, Tribunals are empowered to make their own decision on whether an appellant was a victim of trafficking. (v) Tribunals are also empowered to review a trafficking decision on the ground that it has been reached in breach of the Secretary of State’s policy guidance. (vi) While, in principle it seems that other public law misdemeanours can also be considered by Tribunals, this issue does not arise for determination in the present appeal. (vii) Tribunals may well be better equipped than the Competent Authority to make pertinent findings relating to trafficking. (viii) The procedural obligations inherent in Article 4 ECHR are linked to those enshrined in the Trafficking Convention, Articles 10(2) and 18 in particular. (ix) Any attempt to remove a trafficking victim from the United Kingdom in circumstances where the said procedural obligations have not been discharged will normally be unlawful. •AT and another (Article 8 ECHR – Child Refugee – Family Reunification) Eritrea [2016] UKUT 00227 (IAC) While the Immigration Rules make no provision for family reunification in the United Kingdom in the case of a child who has been granted asylum, a refusal to permit the family members of such child to enter and remain in the United Kingdom may constitute a disproportionate breach of the right to respect for family life enjoyed by all family members under Article 8 ECHR. Updated recent UK BA Guidance: •Certification guidance for non-EEA deportation cases: section 94B: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ses-section-94b</noindex> •Certification guidance for non-suspensive appeals: EEA deportation: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...eea-deportation</noindex> •Register of licensed sponsors: workers: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ponsors-workers</noindex> •Domestic workers in private households: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...vate-households</noindex>

Спасибо за то, что поделились информацией.

Примите мои поздравления

Приятно дополнение: SM and Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ETS – Evidence – Burden of Proof) [2016] UKUT 00229 (IAC) – Updated on May 13, 2016 Please note that this determination now reported and can potentially be used as a precedent in the court cases. This is rather a good news for those (thousands) of migrant students, whose applications were previously refused and who was even removed from the UK.

UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates, Legal Centre, www.legalcentre.org , 07791145923 •Cudjoe (Proxy marriages: burden of proof) [2016] UKUT 00180 (IAC) 1. It will be for an appellant to prove that their proxy marriage was in accordance with the laws of the country in which it took place, and that both parties were free to marry. The burden of proof may be discharged by production of a marriage certificate issued by a competent authority of the country in which the marriage took place, and reliance upon the statutory presumption of validity consequent to such production. The reliability of marriage certificates and issuance by a competent authority are matters for an appellant to prove. 2. The means of proving that a proxy marriage was contracted according to the laws of the country in which it took place is not limited to the production of a marriage certificate, as is recognised in Kareem (Proxy marriages – EU law)[2014] UKUT 00024 (IAC). 3. In cases where a divorce has taken place prior to the proxy marriage and there is an issue as to whether the parties were free to marry, it is for an appellant to show that the dissolution of the previous marriage was in accordance with the laws of the country in which it occurred. •Luu (Periods of study: degree level) [2016] UKUT 00181(IAC) 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. •Tukhas (para 245HD(f): “appropriate salary”) [2016] UKUT 00183 (IAC) The effect of paragraph 14 of Appendix J to the Immigration Rules is that other than where an applicant has contracted weekly hours or is paid an hourly rate, the appropriate salary for the purposes of paragraph 79 of Appendix A is an applicant’s gross annual salary paid by the sponsor employer, subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 79(i)-(iii) of Appendix A. •BJ (Singh explained) Sri Lanka [2016] UKUT 00184 (IAC) Singh (No immigration decision – jurisdiction) [2013] UKUT 00440 (IAC) is authority for proposition that the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only where there has been an immigration decision. It is not authority for the proposition that where an immigration decision has been made the First-tier Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against such decision unless the SSHD has first complied with her obligations under the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003. •Chamber) (extension of time for appealing: principles) IJR [2016] UKUT 00185 (IAC) In considering whether to exercise discretion to extend time for seeking permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal should apply the approach commended by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537; Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and R(Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1663. •Chau Le (Immigration Rules - de minimis principle) [2016] UKUT 00186 (IAC) The de minimis principle is not engaged in the construction or application of the Immigration Rules. Properly analysed, it is a mere surrogate for the discredited “near miss” or “sliding scale” principle. •Chege (“is a persistent offender”) [2016] UKUT 00187 (IAC) 1. The question whether the appellant “is a persistent offender” is a question of mixed fact and law and falls to be determined by the Tribunal as at the date of the hearing before it. 2. The phrase “persistent offender” in s.117D(2)© of the 2002 Act must mean the same thing as “persistent offender” in paragraph 398© of the Immigration Rules. 3. A “persistent offender” is someone who keeps on breaking the law. That does not mean, however, that he has to keep on offending until the date of the relevant decision or that the continuity of the offending cannot be broken. A “persistent offender” is not a permanent status that can never be lost once it is acquired, but an individual can be regarded as a “persistent offender” for the purpose of the Rules and the 2002 Act even though he may not have offended for some time. The question whether he fits that description will depend on the overall picture and pattern of his offending over his entire offending history up to that date. Each case will turn on its own facts. •Significant unreported Tribunal determination SM and Ihsan Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Upper Tribunal, IA/31380 & IA/36319/2014 Judges’ headnote The generic evidence upon which the Secretary of State has relied to date in all ETS cases has been held insufficient to discharge the legal burden of proof on the Secretary of State of proving that the TOEIC certificates were procured by dishonesty in circumstances where this evidence, via expert evidence and otherwise, has been demonstrated as suffering from multiple shortcomings and frailties and, further, the evidence of the two students concerned was found by the Tribunal to be plausible and truthful.

•Comprehensive sickness insurance under the EEA law. You will need this if you are a student or someone not working nor seeking work – that is, a self-sufficient person. You will also need it if you are in the UK in your position as a family member (EU or non-EU) of a student or self-sufficient person. It seems to not matter whether it is the EU national or the family member who holds the comprehensive sickness insurance, so long as it covers the family member. More details can be found on <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...of_students.pdf</noindex>

17-18С....сама нагрелать вода так ? На улице сейчас у нас +20, завтра похоложание, правда...

Обычно дольше по почте. Звонила одна женщина недавно. Подала сама по почте, ждем уже 5-й месяц. Теперь хочет чтобы быстрее рассмотрели и в личном визите. Теортетически возможно, но довольно сложно перевести дело из почтового заявления в рассмотрение в личном визите. Интересно, что их тех, кто ко мне обращается все просят подтотовить и подать дело в личном визите за 1 день. Что я обычно и делаю 1-2 раза в неделю <noindex>в нашем местном PEO</noindex> уже лет 10....

Пожалуйста. Рад был помочь.

Именно так и происходит.

Пожалуйста. Был рад помочь.

Из посдедних 16 заявлений клиентов (14 клиенток и 2 клтента, т.е. женщин больше) все заявления я подавал <noindex>в личном визите в нашем местном PEO</noindex>. Намного проще, безопаснее и быстрее (3.5 часа и все готово). По вашему вопросу конкретно. До 6 месяцев UK BA не сообщает информацию. Никак. После 6 месяцев могут только сказать, что "еще не рассмотрели". Но обычно рассматривают по почте быстрее, чем 6 месяцев.

Не достаточно, т.е. личность спонсора нужно так же подтверждать ТЕКУЩИМ документом.

+1.... Да, британия не использует эту программу.

Лучше оформить британские паспорта.

Примерно так. Автор, с такими детальными вопросами или Guidance, или я Вам в помощь. Если нужно детально разобраться во все вопросах.

За 20+ лет проживания в UK я так и ни разу не отважился искупаться - холодно...Хотя переодически жил у моря...Бассейны не считаются ?