British Lawyer

См. мои комментарии по Вашим вопросам: Привет всем. Заполняю анкету формы VAF5 DEC2013 для подачи на EEA Family Permit. Возникло несколько вопросов: 1) What is the main purpose of your visit to the UK? Написал Join to EEA family member, подойдет или как-то по другому нужно написать? - Подойдет 2) Далее идут 3 вопроса (Как долго вы планируете оставаться в ЮК, дата въезда и дата вызда из ЮК). Если я планирую по EEA FP туда ехать, и потом оттуда подавать на Residence card, что писать в этих пунктах? – Раньше я просто выбирал нереальную дату в будущем, т.е. 2054 год, т.к. не было возможности написать «in line with the sponsor” , т.е. буду находиться столько, соколько будет находится и мой спонсор 3) В части "About you" (Others names). Что здесь заполнять? Других фамилий или имён у меня небыло, только те, которые по паспорту – ничего или отчество 4) В части "Your Contact Details", вопрос о постоянном адрессе проживания (можно заполнить в формате: 20/2, Belitskaja str., Kiev, Ukraine, 04073)? – Да. И вопрос (Сколько времени вы живёте на этом адрессе?) Мне через месяц 21, писал что живу "20 years"? или можно написать "from birth"? Так же, вопрос о домашнем телефоне. Если его нет, просто оставить пустое место или поставить " - " ? Я пишу “from birth” В вопросе Contact details if different from those given in guestions 3.1(адресс резиденства), что в этом вопросе вообще хотят? Это если Вы живете по одному адресу а почту получаете по другому 5) Вопрос What your total monthly income from all sources of employment or occupation after tax? (Я студент платной формы учёбы, не работаю). Мне писать " 0 " или оставлять пустым? Или как быть? – Ставьте «0». 6) EEA National Registration Certificate nember(if held) - Моя жена гражданка Польши, постоянно проживающая в ЮК с польским паспортом. Нужно ли заполнять этот пункт в анкете? Она не помнит, есть ли у неё такой документ – Это т.н. шллубая карточки из UK BA. Если ее нет, то нечего не пишите. 7) How often do you meet? Мы по скайпу говорим каждый день. Пока я был в Лондоне, и когда она ко мне приезжала, мы каждый день видились. Как ответить в данном вопросе? Как ответили в этом пункте. 8) When did you last see the EEA National? - Тут имееться ввиду, в живую видел или по скайпу тоже? –Обычно «в живую». 9) How do keep in touch with the EEA National? - Как написать, что, когда гостим друг у друга, то постоянно видимся, а так-то в скайпе тоже каждый день? Так и пишите. 10) Have you lived with the EEA National in a relationship like a marriage or civil partnership at any time? - Что здесь имееться ввиду? Жили ли мы вместе после того как поженились? – Спрашивают о всех периодах сожительства как партнеров под одной крышей 11) Чем отличаются вопросы What is the name of company they work for? –Спрашивают название фирмы спонсора и What is the EEA National's present work or job or occupation? В обеех же надо писать, где она сейчас работает (тобишь назву компании?) – Спрашивают, КЕМ работает спонсор 12) Have you met the EEA National? - Не понимаю вопроса – Спрашивают, видели ли Вы «в живую» Вашего спонсора  13) Are you and the EEA National related outside marriage? - Это что имееться ввиду? Кто мы приходимся друг другу если бы не брак? – Спрашивают, не приходится ли Ваш спорнсор Вам сестрой и т.п. 14) Is the EEA National responsible for anyone's financial support, including any children listed above? - Удерживает ли финансово кого-то моя супруга? Или вопрос "Способна ли она кого-то удерживать"? Немогу понять – Спрашивают, помогает ли Ваш спонсор кому-то еще 15) И ещё вопрос. Do you intend to work in the UK? - Если да, написать подробности. – Правильно. Я вообще планирую работать в Лондоне, но как я могу знать где я буду работать если у меня ещё даже EEA FP не открыта? – Можете тогда ничего не писать. Или по EEA FP нельзя работать и в вопросе нужно ставить No? - По EEA FP можно работать. Удачи.

Украина: - гостевая виза на 2 года для мамы клиентки:выдали за 2 недели, лишние вопросы не задавали - гостевая виза на 6 месяцев для родителей клиентки : выдали за 10 дней, лишние вопросы не задавали

Просто британцы по себе судят. Предоставьте выписку (документ) из налоговой.

Исходя из требований в Appendix FM, срок получения текущей зарплаты лучше указывать точне.

Обычно если виза действительно еще, то новую виза ТАКОГО ЖЕ типа могут не дать. Но если Вы укажите причины и сроки желаемого получения новой визы такого же типа, то новую визу могут дать в желаемый срок.

Важно решение European Court of Justice (EUCJ) в отношении Retained Right of Residence Singh and Others (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-218/14 (16 July 2015) The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice gave preliminary rulings in three cases referred by the High Court of Ireland and in which submissions from the European Commission and the Governments of the UK, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Poland were also considered. The Court ruled on the following issues: 1) whether, considering articles 7 and 13(2)(a) of EC Directive 2004/38/EC, a non-EU national may retain a right of residence on divorce if the divorce is preceded by the departure of their EU spouse from the host member state; and 2) whether the requirements of an EU national’s right to reside under article 7(1)( on the basis of having sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state if those resources derive in part from their non-EU spouse; 1. Retention of the right of residence on divorce Article 13 on the retention of the right of residence by family members in the event of divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership provides at 13(2): Without prejudice to the second subparagraph, divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of the registered partnership referred to in point 2( of Article 2 shall not entail loss of the right of residence of a Union citizen’s family members who are not nationals of a Member State where: (a) prior to initiation of the divorce or annulment proceedings or termination of the registered partnership referred to in point 2( of Article 2, the marriage or registered partnership has lasted at least three years, including one year in the host Member State […]. The purpose of article 13 is to provide legal safeguards for family members in the event of the death of the EU citizen, divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of a registered partnership, as indicated by recital 15 of the preamble to the directive. In each of the three cases referred by the High Court of Ireland, the EU spouse had left the host member state and settled in another country before commencing divorce proceedings against their non-EU spouse remaining in Ireland. The Court considered whether the nonEU spouse retained their right of residence under article 13(2) in these circumstances. The Grand Chamber held that the non-EU national cannot retain a right of residence in the Member State under that provision where divorce proceedings were preceded by the departure of the EU spouse from the host member state (§70). The right of residence is retained under article 13(2) if the third country national has a right to reside under article 7(2) in the member state on the date of commencement of the divorce proceedings if the other conditions under article 13 are met (§61). If the EU spouse has left the member state, the third country national no longer meets the conditions for the right to reside under article 7(2) (§65) and so cannot claim the ‘retention’ of a right to reside under article 13 (§67). The Court stated that this did not mean that Member States, which may grant more extensive protection, could not authorise continued rights of residence under its national laws (§68). The applicants in each of the three cases had been granted renewable temporary permission under national law which enabled them to legally reside and work in Ireland. 2 . Sufficient resources derived in part from non-EU spouse In each of the three cases referred, there was found to be a period during which the EU spouse was not working in the Member State and the family was supported by the income derived from the business or employment of the non-EU spouse. For example, in the case of the Njume family, the non-EU spouse, Mr Njume supported his EU wife financially during a three-year period (§26). The Court considered whether the requirements of the right to reside of the EU national under article 7(1)( of Directive 2004/38 on the basis of having sufficient resources were met where their income derived in part from the resources of their third country national spouse. Reflecting the framing of the question posed, the Court held that article 7(1)( of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that an EU citizen has sufficient resources for himself and his family members even where these derive in part from those of their third country national spouse (§77). The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Alokpa and Moudoulou, C-86/12, EU:C:2013:645 stating that the expression ‘have’ sufficient resources under article 7(1)( lays down no requirement whatsoever as to the origin of those resources, which may be provided by the third country national (§74); and in Zhu and Chen, C-200/02, EU:C:2004:639 stating that an interpretation of sufficiency of resources requiring these to be held by the EU citizen alone, without the resources of an accompanying family member, would be a disproportionate interference with the exercise of the right of freedom of movement as it was not necessary to achieve the objective of protecting public finances (§75).

Работать может, но в таком случае лучше жить с Вами, т.к. он же является зависимым лицом. Так же жениться нельзя. Учиться можно, даже в другом городе.

В таких случаях нужно четкое письмо от работодателя как выплачивается зарплата с таблицей выплат зарплаты за последние 12 месяцев.

Заявление клиента, Tier 2 (General), Минск. Рассмотрели за 10 дней.

Пожалуйста.

Пожалуйста.

Как я Вас понимаю. В большинстве случае приходится работать здесь с супругами-британцами украинских клиенток. Хотя иногда попадаются женщины, кто сами меня находят и я только контактирую с ними и, очень редко, с их супругами. Кстати, Роб - очень популярное имя, по крайней мере среди мужей моих клиенток :-)

Абсолютно не относится с точки зрения иммиграционной терминологии. Она считается employed, для employed такая страховка не нужна, чтобы привезти члена семьи.

Понятие домашнего насилия в иммиграции распространяется только на лиц, имеющих визу супруги/супруга. Я регулярно работаю с заявителями в такой категории. Ваша знакомая может позвонить мне - посмотрим, что можно сделать.

Приветствую, Пожалуйста: <noindex>http://www.rutalk.co.uk/showthread.php?141...riage+interview</noindex> По второму вопросу - об изменении работы нужно сообщать как можно раньше. UK BA просто звонит работодателям по тем данным, что у них есть...Если данные старые...результат предсказуем.

Простым языком, если EU супруга находится в Великобритании в категории EU Student или Self-Sufficient. Если интересуют детали, можете записаться на консультацию по Skype: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex>

Recent case-law, September 2015, Part 3 •Iqbal (Para 322 Immigration Rules) [2015] UKUT 00434 (IAC) (i)The effect of the words “are to be refused” in paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules is to render refusal of leave to remain the United Kingdom obligatory in cases where any of the listed grounds arises. The decision maker has no discretion. (ii)The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations is a nuanced, sophisticated one which should not be prayed in aid without careful reflection. •R (on the application of GB by litigation friend, Francesco Jeff) v Oxfordshire County Council (age dispute- relevance of documents) IJR [2015] UKUT 00429 (IAC) The duty of the Tribunal in disputed age assessments is to consider the evidence as a whole, including documentary evidence relied upon, even where there are a number of documents produced purporting to verify the claimed age. SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157 considered. •R (on the application of Ali Ahmad Rashid) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00430 (IAC) Judicial review granted, quashing a decision not to accept submissions as a fresh claim in the case of an Iranian Kurd. It was not open to the Respondent to conclude that a report by Professor Joffé submitted by the claimant was not sufficient to depart from the country guidance findings. The three country guidance cases of SB, BA and SA do not deal with the risk on return of a Kurd who is a failed asylum seeker. Whilst an immigration judge would have to consider that the claimant has no credible history and that the report of Professor Joffé was a generic report prepared for another case, the report does address risk to Kurds not only on the basis of political activism but also simply by reason of being Kurds and so contains and refers to evidence that would have to be considered seriously by a judge. •R (on the application of NK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00431 (IAC) Successful judicial review challenging refusal to accept submissions as a fresh asylum claim brought by a Cameroonian woman fearing persecution as a lesbian from both the state and members of her family. The claimant’s case was dismissed at first instance and at appeal within the detained fast track process in 2013. Further evidence was subsequently obtained. This included a letter from an individual who had made enquiries in the country of origin about her situation and letters from members of a lesbian support group in the UK that the Home Office argued were self-serving. The Tribunal rejected the Home Office submissions and also refused permission to the Court of Appeal on these points. The Judge considered that whilst those writing the support letters place weight on what the applicant had told them, they also accepted that she was a lesbian based on their own experiences and their own sexuality. The Tribunal found that taking both the new evidence and the earlier evidence into account, it was not open to the Secretary of State to consider that there would not be a reasonable prospect of success before an Immigration Judge.

Recent case-law, September 2015, Part 2 •R (on the application of Hamasour) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (supplementary decision letter – effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00414 (IAC) The decision in Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design [2001] EWHC 538 (Admin) may provide a useful tool on the issue of whether a supplementary decision letter amounts to a fresh decision, or whether it merely supplements the decision already made, and in relation to matters to be considered in terms of the effect of such a supplementary decision letter. •MAB (para 399; “unduly harsh”) USA [2015] UKUT 00435 (IAC) 1. The phrase “unduly harsh” in para 399 of the Rules (and s.117C(5) of the 2002 Act) does not import a balancing exercise requiring the public interest to be weighed against the circumstances of the individual (whether child or partner of the deportee). The focus is solely upon an evaluation of the consequences and impact upon the individual concerned. 2. Whether the consequences of deportation will be “unduly harsh” for an individual involves more than “uncomfortable, inconvenient, undesirable, unwelcome or merely difficult and challenging” consequences and imposes a considerably more elevated or higher threshold. 3. The consequences for an individual will be “harsh” if they are “severe” or “bleak” and they will be “unduly” so if they are ‘inordinately’ or ‘excessively’ harsh taking into account of all the circumstances of the individual. (MK (section 55 – Tribunal options) Sierra Leone [2015] UKUT 223 (IAC) at [46] and BM and others (returnees – criminal and non-criminal) DRC CG [2015] UKUT 293 (IAC) at [109] applied.) •R (on the application of Bilal Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00436 (IAC) (1) The fact that P (who is not an EEA national) has a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 against an EEA decision to refuse P a residence card does not have the effect of precluding the Secretary of State from removing P under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. (2) Section 92(4)( of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as it was before the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014) does not afford P an in-country right of appeal against the section 10 decision, where the issue of whether P is a member of the family of an EEA national is a matter of dispute. (3) The factual issue of whether P is a family member falls to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal on appeal by P against the EEA decision and/or the section 10 decision, whether or not P may by then be outside the United Kingdom. A judicial review by P of the decision to remove and/or the setting of removal directions will not succeed where P’s application is based on marriage to an EEA national, if the Secretary of State reasonably suspects P of being a party to a marriage of convenience. •R (on the application of Naziri and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR – scope - evidence) IJR [2015] UKUT 00437 (IAC) (i)It is intrinsically undesirable that judicial review proceedings be transacted in circumstances where material evidence on which the Applicants seek to rely has not been considered by the primary decision maker. (ii)There is a strong general prohibition in contemporary litigation against rolling review by the Upper Tribunal in judicial review proceedings. (iii)Where a judicial review applicant is proposing to make further representations to the Secretary of State in circumstances where a new decision will forseeably be induced, it will normally be appropriate, to refuse permission or to dismiss the application substantively on the ground that it will be rendered moot and/or an alternative remedy remains unexhausted and/or giving effect to the prohibition against rolling review. (iv)The principles rehearsed above are to be similarly applied to applications for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. (v)Where a draft judgment is circulated in advance of handing down the function of parties and their representatives is confined to notifying mis-spellings, formatting defects, inadvertent factual errors, ambiguities of expression and kindred blemishes: Edwards & Ors R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Ors [2008] UKHL 22 applied. •Yusuf (EEA - ceasing to be a jobseeker; effect) [2015] UKUT 00433 (IAC) An individual who has acquired the status of worker for the purposes of article 45 (ex Article 3) TFEU) (and thus regulation 4 (1) (a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006) only through being a jobseeker, who is a qualified person under regulation 6(1)(a), does not retain the status of worker on ceasing to be a jobseeker. In such a scenario, the purpose in interpreting article 45 widely – to give effect to the right to move to another member state to seek employment – is absent. The term ‘worker’ within article 45 covers, to a greater or lesser extent, not only actual workers but also: (1) those entering a state for the first time to seek employment (‘first-time’ job seekers’) (2) those who have had a job and are again seeking work (‘second-time job seekers’) (3) vocational or occupational trainees; the involuntarily unemployed and sick; (4) injured and retired workers; and, (5) women who, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, give up work or jobseeking, provided they return to work or find another job within a reasonable period after the birth of the child.

Recent case-law, September 2015, Part 1 •Beaurish Tigere in R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57 (29 July 2015) Success for The Supreme Court held, by a majority of three to two, that rules rendering persons with limited or discretionary leave for student loans discriminated against her and breached Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read with Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention, the right to education. The Supreme Court held that requiring a person to be settled to be eligible for a student loan was not justified, but that the requirement of three years’ lawful ordinary residence was. The dissenting minority based their decision on the right to education’s not importing a right to financial support. It is left to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skill to devise a more carefully tailored criterion for student finance which will avoid breaching Convention rights of other applicants. •R (on the application of Kuruwitage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 0402 (IAC) The claimant had leave as a Tier 4 student with a condition prohibiting employment. He was arrested and admitted under caution to undertaking unpaid voluntary work for 20 hours per week in breach of that condition. The Court held that the Home Office did not act ultra vires in seeking to remove the claimant under section 10(1)(a) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for breaching a condition attached to his limited leave rather than consider curtailing that leave giving rise to an in-country right of appeal. An out-of-country remedy was found to be sufficient in this case and the judicial review was dismissed. •R (on the application of Shabani) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Legacy – residence – SOS’s limited duty) IJR [2015] UKUT 0403 (IAC) In giving effect to Chapter 53.1.2 of her Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, the respondent is not required to refer specifically to the particular period of residence. It is sufficient that the respondent can be seen to have been aware of the period of residence when applying the policy to the facts of the particular case. •Forman (ss 117A-C considerations) [2015] UKUT 00412 (IAC) (i)The public interest in firm immigration control is not diluted by the consideration that a person pursuing a claim under Article 8 ECHR has at no time been a financial burden on the state or is self-sufficient or is likely to remain so indefinitely. The significance of these factors is that where they are not present the public interest is fortified. (ii)The list of considerations contained in section 117B and section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the “2002 Act”) is not exhaustive. A court or tribunal is entitled to take into account additional considerations, provided that they are relevant in the sense that they properly bear on the public interest question. (iii)In cases where the provisions of sections 117B-117C of the 2002 Act arise, the decision of the Tribunal must demonstrate that they have been given full effect. •R (on the application of Chirairo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00411 (IAC) This is a successful judicial review challenging refusal of leave to remain on the basis of inconsistent treatment with the claimant’s sister. In 2006, the claimant and his sister were accepted as dependents on their father’s application for leave to remain as a student when their appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal taking into account the fact that the claimant had turned 18 years. The Home Office did not appeal and subsequently granted 5 months leave to the whole family. When the claimant’s father then applied for leave to remain as work permit holder, the family were granted leave as his dependents but the claimant was refused. In subsequent applications, the claimant’s parents were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain and his sister, who was by this time over 18 years, Discretionary Leave to Remain. The challenge was brought against refusal of the claimant’s application for Discretionary Leave to Remain in 2012 highlighting the distinction made between his case and that of his sister. Judicial review was granted, the Tribunal holding: “This decision was only explicable on the basis that the Home Office had chosen, rather than following or appealing the judge’s decision, to side step it by granting a short period of leave and then disregarding it. That amounted to a clear disregard of the statutory appellate procedure and the decision must be set aside.”

Immigration digest September 2015 •Comments on the statement of changes HC 297: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...596_hc_297.pdf</noindex> This Statement of Changes in immigration rules appeared on 13 July 2015 and came partially into effect on 14 July and 3 August 2015, with the remaining provisions coming into effect on 12 November 2015. Its main focus is students but it makes other significant changes. Changes that took effect on 3 August 2015 mean that administrative review is withdrawn if a person makes a fresh application. This means that 3C leave ends for those in the UK. It means that a person is unable to pursue the correction of an error and thus remove a blot on their immigration history at the same time as moving forward with their application to come to the UK. It is presented in the Explanatory Memorandum to HC 297 as helpful. It hardly is. New students at publicly funded further education colleges who apply after 12 November 2015 will be prevented from being able to work in the UK from 12 November 2015 and students at colleges will be unable to switch to a work visa or extend their study visa whilst they are in the UK. The time limit on further education study will be reduced from three years to two. Other changes affect transit passengers, family and private life and returning residents. For example, applicants under Part 8 who fail to meet the requirements for leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence or as a bereaved partner will be allowed an administrative review. The income of an equity partner, e.g. in a law firm, will be allowed to be included as employment income for the purposes of Appendix FM-SE. •Tier 2 Review The Migration Advisory Committee is consulting on its review of Tier 2. A wide swathe of proposals are canvassed which, if implemented, would change the landscape for those coming to work in the UK. Tier 2 could be restricted to shortage occupations and “highly specialist experts.” Spouses and partners of Tier 2 workers could lose their automatic right to work in the UK. The intra-company transfer route, for so long the safety valve under Tier 2, is now ostensibly in the line of fire. •Right to rent Fuelled by the images from Calais, the Government is pressing ahead with its “hostile environment” agenda. The Immigration Bill is now expected when parliament returns and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has said that it will contain proposals to allow landlords and landladies to evict tenants without leave to be in the UK more easily. A new criminal offence is proposed whereby those who repeatedly fail to conduct the “right to rent” checks or fail to take steps to remove those without leave to be in their property will face up to five years in prison. There will be blacklists of landlords and landladies. •Asylum support The Asylum Support (Amendment No.3) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1501) make dramatic cuts to asylum support for families with children with effect from 10 August 2015. All those receiving asylum support will now get the same weekly allowance of £36.95 per person. The effect is particularly dramatic in single-parent families: a single parent with two children will see their support reduced by over twenty-five per cent. There will be more changes. The government is consulting on support under sections 95 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Inter alia, it proposes to repeal s 4(1) of the Act which makes provision for support for those granted bail, temporary admission or temporary release or otherwise released from detention and also to end the scheme under which families with children continue to receive s 95 support while they remain in the UK. •Immigration Health Surcharge: common casework questions, House of Commons Library, 6 August 2015: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7274</noindex> •The £35,000 salary requirement to settle in the UK: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7264</noindex> •The UK and the EU: reform, renegotiation, withdrawal? A reading list: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7220</noindex> •Visa Requirements for Tier 1 [Requirement to produce criminal record], House of Commons 20 July 2015: Column 80WS Visa Requirements for Tier 1 [Requirement to produce criminal record], House of Commons 20 July 2015: Column 80WS The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire): “I am announcing today that from 1 September 2015, individuals who are applying for entry clearance as an entrepreneur or an investor under the tier 1 category will be required to provide a criminal record certificate from any country in which they have lived for 12 months or more in the previous 10 years. Under the previous Government we changed the immigration rules to introduce a requirement to provide an overseas criminal record certificate where that is required. We will introduce this requirement in a controlled way and learn the lessons from implementation as we roll out the requirement to other categories of migrant.”. •According to the recent Customer Service Operations, UK Visas and Immigration response, there is no deadline to lodge a reconsideration request following a refusal of a Naturalization application •Recent Tier1 (Entrepreneur) guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/public...1-entrepreneur</noindex>

Rob в курсе :-) ?

Да, 6 месяцев это минимум для сберегательного счета. Но если Вы работаете, то все равно документы по зарплате нужно будет показывать.

На основании Regulations это не играет роли, если все остальные условия тех же Regulations выполняются. У нас более половины клиентов вообще подает или без виз или с давно просроченными визами (рекорд - лет 8 или больше, это на вскидку). Хотя обратите внимание, что в Вашем случае возможно вас с супругом могут вызвать на интервью в Ливерпуль. См. мой подробный тред с регулярными отчетами о посещении таких интервью в Ливерпуле с клиентами (длительность такого интрвью - в среднем 4 часа).

Добрый день, Вам дали неправильную информацию, учитывая Вашу ситуацию. Ссылка на общий первоисточник: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/family-permit/overview</noindex>

Заявление клиентов (первоначально Entry Clearance Tier 1 General, потом продление - Tier 1G, далее - SETO ILR), теперь заявление на гражданство, муж и жена, Украина. Подали заявление 07-05-2015, а 27-08-2015 пришло подтверждение из UK BA о том, что из заявления рассмотрели положительно. Итого рассматривали чуть менее чем 4 месяца. Кстати, BRP карточки UK BA вернул.