British Lawyer

Насчет Redirect. Насколько я знаю, государственные послания, включая почту из UK BA не пересылают ! То есть Redirect не работает с документами UK BA и т.п.

Приветствую, Итак: Здравствуйте, я собрала документы на визу невесты,осталось только заполнить анкету. - Отлично. Но я не уверена на какую именно нужно подавать,будьте добры подскажите, я смотрела сетелмент и анмерид партнер - Settlement. Unmarried partner это не Ваша категория. А еще в анкете есть пару вопросов, такие как: когда вы планируете выезд в Великобританию ( как же знать, до подачи документов? ) - Когда я подаю заявления клиентов в UK VAC в Киеве, я пишу примерный срок, учитывая средние сроки рассмотрения заявлений на визы жен и невест. Например, +2 или +3 месяца со дня подачи. , и сколько вы планируете находится - постоянно; в календаре я ставлю максимально возможную дату, т.е. 2059 год, если нет возможности (как в других анкетах ранее) написать Permenently. Еще мой жених поменял работу( мы вместе работали на круизных лайнерах 8 лет, вместе 1 год, решили жить на суше, у него работа в Англии , начинает 27 июля, и я теперь без работы, это проблема? ) - Работа заявителя не играет в роли в Вашем заявлении.

Депортируют за криминал, т.е. нужно получить срок от года и больше. Возможно, Вы имели в виду высылку ? Несмотря на это, заявления такого плана рассматривают по Art 8 ECHR, которая все меньше и меньше имеет значения в современных законах UK. Даже если и человек получит статус на основании LR после 20 лет пребывания в UK, этот статус будет временным и всего на 2.5 года. Такой статус нужно будет продлевать еще 3 раза и только после 10 лет можно будет подавать на ILR. Итого 30 (!) лет до ILR (ПМЖ).

UK BA решил не возвращать сертификаты Life in the UK Раньше такого не встречал. Получили очередной approval по заявлению клиентки и ее ребенка на гражданство. UK BA пишет, что "It is Home Office policy not to return a Life in the UK Pass Notification Letter where a person is granted British citizenship. In accordance with this policy, your Pass Notification Letter has been retained". Обратите внимание.

Новые EEA формы: The UK BA has introduced slightly shorter EEA(FM) and EEA(EFM) forms have been introduced: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card/apply</noindex> The previous EEA(FM) weighed in at some 137 pages and the new ones at a mere 76 and 91 pages. That is still far, far too long, though, and far, far longer than the forms they replaced. It is also far longer than the UK domestic equivalent forms. Is it has been in the past, the use of these EEA forms is optional, not mandatory.

Внимание ! Отмена т.н. Established Status для студентов с 11-11-2015 Ссылка: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...68024/hc439.pdf</noindex> Что меняется. Ранее студентам, кто отучился в UK от 6 и более месяцев позволялось при продлении показывать т.н. maintenance в размере 2-х месячной суммы. С 11 ноября 2015 года т.н. established student status отменяется и при продлении визы студенту нужно будет показывать т.н. maintenance в размере 9-и месячной суммы. Обратите внимание.

UK Asylum Support Application Form link: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/…/atta…/file/261498/asylumsupportform.pdf</noindex> Возможно, кому-то пригодится.

The £35,000 salary requirement to settle in the UK Брифинг для парламента: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7264</noindex> Ну и для тех, кто еще не знал.

Работать бесплатно = работать = проблемы с UK BA Что и подтвердил суд: R (on the application of Kuruwitage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 0402 (IAC) This is a judicial review which was heard and promulgated before the Court of Appeal judgment in Mehmood & Anor, R (On the Applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744 (14 July 2015) but has only been published after that judgment which gives more authoritative guidance. 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.

Tier 1 Entrepreneur/Investor - важные изменения с 01-09-2015 Обратите внимание, что заявители по категоримя Tier 1 Entrepreneur и Tier 1 Investor с 01-09-2015 будут должны предоставить т.н. Criminal Records Certificate: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ce_07_2015.pdf</noindex> From 1st September 2015, If you are applying for entry clearance as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)or as an adult dependant (over 18 years old) of the main applicant in this route you mustprovide an overseas criminal record certificate for any country you have resided incontinuously for 12 months or more, in the 10 years prior to your application. You mustprovide the following specified documents:  The original certificate, for each country (excluding the UK) where you have residedcontinuously for 12 months or more in the last 10 years, since aged 18 years old,issued by the overseas authority, and  If the original is not in English, then you must provide a translated copy of certificate,in line with the requirements set out at: www.gov.uk/certifying-a-document UK BA планирует расширить требование на предоставление подобного документа по всем другим иммиграционных катеориям.

UK & EEA Immigration Law updates July 2015 •Detained fast-track suspended The suspension comes as a result of legal challenges. First, in R (Detention Action v First-Tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Ors [2015] EWHC 1689 (Admin) (12 June 2015), Nicol J held that the fast-track procedure rules were ultra vires the powers of the Tribunal Procedure Committee which has power to make procedure rules securing that justice be done and that the tribunal system is fair. By ‘allowing one party to the appeal to put the other at serious procedural disadvantage without sufficient judicial supervision’, the rules were not securing these objectives and the Committee was acting out with its powers. •Measures to limit migrants’ access to benefits: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...Summary/SN06889</noindex> •Written Statement (HCWS95) announcing new statement of changes in Immigration Rules, 13 July 2015: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons...Immigration.pdf</noindex> Recent case-law: •R (on the application of Badalge) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00325 (IAC) The Claimant made an in-time application for further leave to remain as a student and his leave was extended pursuant to Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. The Secretary of State issued a decision to remove the applicant under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and refused the outstanding application for leave to remain under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules following alleged use of deception in providing a fraudulently obtained certificate from the Educational Testing Service. The Secretary of State informed the claimant that he only had an out-of-country right of appeal as the decision was not an immigration decision under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 82(2)(d) did not apply as the decision did not vary his leave such that he had no leave to enter or remain as a result. This was because his existing leave to enter or remain in the UK was invalidated by the removal decision pursuant to section 10(8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Court confirmed that this was the correct position, holding that the facts were similar to Shahbaz Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department and that the case of Ahmadi relied upon by the claimant was consistent with that decision. The claim for judicial review was therefore dismissed. •R (on the application of FBL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00328 (IAC) The claimant was unsuccessful in his judicial review challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse or accept as a fresh claim his application for leave to remain relying on the private and family life, established whilst living unlawfully in the UK, with his partner and two children aged 3 and 4 years who were subsequently granted Discretionary Leave to Remain. The claimant failed to demonstrate that the Secretary of State unlawfully applied an ‘exceptionality’ test when considering his rights under Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights. The Court considered Secretary of State for the Home Department v SS (Congo) and others where a test of exceptionality was held to be applicable in two specific contexts: where the family relationship had been established in the context of precariousness and in the deportation of foreign criminals. The Court considered that this approach may be restricted to cases where no children were involved but did not rely on the point, having not heard submissions on the case and having concluded that the claimant had not established that an exceptionality test had been applied. References to ‘exceptional’ in the language of the refusal letter was shorthand for considering whether there were exceptional circumstances that may properly be required to outweigh the public interest and the refusal letter had to be read as a whole. Similar arguments made by the claimant had been considered and rejected in R (Chen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Grounds of review based on failure to consider the children’s best interests and to take into account all relevant factors in the assessment of proportionality also failed. Both parents were Chinese nationals and would not have difficulty reintegrating in China. Their children were of an age where their principal relationships were within the family unit rather than having wider social ties. The Secretary of State was entitled to reach the conclusion that there were no obstacles to family life in China on the evidence before her without further enquiries given the ages of the children who were not in the position of having spent 7 years in the UK and developed social ties. The Secretary of State’s delay of just over 1 year in taking a decision was not a significant factor to be weighed in the context of the claimant having lived in the UK without leave to remain since 2007 and absconded between 2008- 2012 and there being no evidence of the children having developed social ties outside the family unit. •Badewa (ss 117A-D and EEA Regulations) [2015] UKUT 00329 (IAC) The correct approach to be applied by tribunal judges in relation to ss.117A-D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum 2002 (as amended) in the context of EEA removal decisions is: (i) first to decide if a person satisfies requirements of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. In this context ss.117A-D has no application; (ii) second where a person has raised Article 8 as a ground of appeal, ss.117A-D applies. •RK (Allowed appeals – service on respondent) Albania [2015] UKUT 00331 (IAC) 1. Service by the First-tier Tribunal of a determination allowing the appeal on the Presenting Officers’ Unit in Cardiff rather than on the Specialist Appeals Team in Angel Square was good service despite what was said to be an agreement to serve all allowed appeals on the Angel Square team. 2. Accordingly on the evidence before it, the Upper Tribunal upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to refuse to admit the Secretary of State’s appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal as the appeal was out of time and it was not in the interests of justice to extend time. •R (on the application of HRP and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00351(IAC) Refusal by the Secretary of State of an application for leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE Immigration Rules (long residence) was unlawful as the decision failed to engage with the issue of whether the claimants, a couple with two children, had lost their ties to their country of origin. Whilst the decision on this issue need not be detailed, it must demonstrate that the salient features of the claim have been considered and tested against the requirements of the rules. Nor can the decision be read across from one of the joined applicants to another; they are entitled to individual consideration of their case. The failure to lawfully consider the applicants’ long residence meant that the Secretary of State cannot have lawfully considered the children’s best interests. The Court rejected the argument of the Secretary of State that since the Immigration Rules take into account s.55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 she discharges her duty to consider the best interests of the children by considering the application under the Immigration Rules. The discharge of the Secretary of State’s duty to consider th children’s best interests is fact sensitive and while there may be cases where this duty may be discharged by considering the case generally under the immigration rules, this will not be the norm. The instant case is not one that may be discharged by general consideration of the application under the rules as there are numerous features of evidence relevant to the children’s best interests. •R (on the application of AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00352 (IAC) The Secretary of State’s decision to refuse to revoke a deportation order and certify the application as clearly unfounded was held to be unlawful due to her failure to give proper consideration to the best interests of the child. The decision to certify the application as clearly unfounded was therefore quashed. The claimant had been deported from the UK in 2000 following a sentence of 7 years imprisonment for indecent assault. He returned in the same year in breach of the order and lived unlawfully in the UK, developing a family life with his current wife, their two children and his wife’s child from a previous relationship. He was arrested in 2006 following a domestic dispute and applied for leave to remain on Article 8 European Convention of Human Rights grounds. His case was considered by the Court of Appeal in 2012 which identified strong reasons why the public interest was in favour of deporting the claimant. The claimant made a further application for leave to remain in 2013, submitting an independent social worker report commenting on the negative impact of separation, particularly on the applicant’s daughter who has significant learning difficulties and on his wife who has a history of depression and self harm and would suffer a deterioration in her emotional/mental health, affecting her ability to meet her children’s needs. The Court considered that although the children’s best interests were considered during the previous proceedings, the additional expert evidence and passage of time meant the situation could have changed. Supplementary reasons for refusal given by the Secretary of State following the claimant’s application for permission were to be treated with scepticism as they advanced a different basis for their decision well into the course of litigation. The Secretary of State did not take sufficient account of the level harm caused by separation in balancing this against the public interest given that the best interests of the children were the central concern. Whilst the Secretary of State states in supplementary reasons that the mother may be able to access help if her condition deteriorates, she failed to give sufficient consideration to the impact on her children of her consequent inability to care for them. •R (on the application of Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (right of appeal – alternative remedy) IJR [2015] UKUT 00353 (IAC) Although each case must be determined on its own facts, in cases where a person seeks to dispute the Secretary of State’s assertions as to the availability of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the appropriate course is for such person to lodge a notice of appeal with the First-tier Tribunal requesting that it determine this issue. Given the existence of this suitable alternative remedy, it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the Upper Tribunal will exercise its discretion and grant relief to a person who seeks to raise this same issue before it in judicial review proceedings brought against the Secretary of State.

Важные изменения в программе Tier 4: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons...Immigration.pdf</noindex> Mainly changes to Tier 4 : - New students at publicly funded colleges will be prevented from being able to work in the UK - From "the autumn", "college students" will be unable to switch to a work visa or extend their study visa whilst they are in the UK The rules around academic progression are being tightened so that university students are only permitted to extend their studies at the same academic level if the course they wish to study is linked to their previous course, or the university confirms the course supports the student’s career aspirations. The time limit on further education study will be reduced from three years to two years in "the autumn". The maintenance requirement for Tier 4 students is increasing, along with the maximum amount paid for accommodation which can be offset against the maintenance requirement. The rule around established presence which allowed students applying to extend their leave within the UK to show only two months’ maintenance is being removed. The application of the rules on time limits is being "clarified" so that the time a student has already spent studying in the UK is calculated using the full length of the leave they have previously been granted. Changes are being made to allow a Tier 4 visa to be issued in line with a student’s intended date of travel. Conditions of study are being changed, to prevent those in Tier 4 from studying at academies or schools maintained by a local authority. Those who wish to study a foundation course to prepare for entry to higher education are also being prevented from doing so under the Tier 4 (Child) route. Where responsibilities of sponsor organisations and terminology have recently changed, the rules are being updated.

•R (on the application of SN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (striking out – principles) IJR [2015] UKUT 00227(IAC) (i)Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 empowers the Upper Tribunal to take such action as it considers just, which may include striking out a party’s case under rule 8, where there has been a failure to comply with a requirement of the rules, a practice direction or a tribunal direction. (ii)Under rule 8 proceedings are automatically struck out in the event of failure to comply with an order or direction which specifies that non-compliance will attract this sanction, viz an “unless” order. In other cases the power to strike out is discretionary. (iii)In considering whether to exercise its discretionary strike out power under rule 8, the 4 main factors which the Upper Tribunal will weigh are the interests of the administration of justice; whether there has been a prompt application for relief; whether the failure was intentional; whether there is a good explanation for the failure; the number and importance of multiple failures; whether the failure was caused by the party or his legal representative; whether the trial date will be jeopardised by the grant of relief; the effect on every party of the relevant failure; and the effect on every party of granting relief. Further, the interests of the administration of justice will be weighed and applied. (iv)In addition, the Tribunal will apply the following principles: public authorities and private litigants are to be treated alike; excessive work burdens will rarely excuse a defaulting solicitor; and the mere factor of a party being unrepresented does not constitute good reason. In asylum and humanitarian protection claims, particular care must be taken to ensure that appeals are not frustrated by a failure on the part of a party’s legal representative to comply with time limits. (v)In considering the exercise of its discretionary strike out power under rule 8, the Tribunal will be mindful of the draconian nature of such orders and will take into account the availability of any other appropriate and adequate sanction such as a wasted costs order under rule 10(3). Repeated defaults will almost invariably be considered more serious than a single act of non-compliance. In every case the Tribunal will consider the question of whether its process is being misused. (vi)In an application under rule 8(5) to reinstate a struck out case, the main factors to be considered are the reason for the failure which gave rise to the strike out order, whether there has been any undue delay in applying for reinstatement and whether reinstatement would prejudice the other party. (vii)The values of efficiency and expedition will be promoted and due observance of the overriding objective will be enhanced by adherence to the principles and standards of pleading rehearsed in [28] – [32]. (viii)In judicial review cases, applications to amend so as to enable a new or later decision to be challenged must be made proactively and timeously. Such applications will be determined on their merits and giving effect to the overriding objective. •R (on the application of RA (and by his litigation friend) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00242 (IAC) NB:This key case considers when there needs to be an independent review of the merits of a distinct asylum and human rights claim by a dependent child whom the Secretary of State is seeking to remove with their adult parent and gives guidance on the application of the principle of the best interests of the child. A judicial review was brought on behalf of a 5 year-old child (RA) removed with his mother to Nigeria, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner intervening. The claimants challenged the refusal of the Secretary of State to treat further submissions relating to the child either as an asylum and human rights application in his own right or as a fresh claim, which would have given rise to an in-country right of appeal. 5 The Court accepted in principle that where no separate claim was expressly advanced on behalf of a child, the circumstances may be such as to warrant independent treatment. In doing so, the Court was mindful of submissions made that there were no written procedures or applications for asylum and human rights claims and the Secretary of State’s policy required a purposive approach to such claims; that an individual could simultaneously be a dependent on an application and advance a claim in their right and caseworkers had to be sensitive to these; that the Secretary of State’s guidance required her to be alert to the rights and interests of children to ensure that their position is separately and distinctly considered from that of adults; that children may be at risk of harm on return in circumstances where an adult might not be at risk; and the ‘invisibility’ of accompanied children may lead to their claims being overlooked. The Court further stated that whether the Secretary of State must identify a separate claim will be fact sensitive. While clear and obvious conflict between the interests of a parent and child would justify separate treatment, this would be unusual and differences in claims may be accommodated within the family claim. The child’s interests would be protected as a result of a best interests inquiry under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. On the facts of this case, a separate claim was not found. The Court subsequently considered the refusal to accept the representations put forward in relation to the child as amounting to a fresh claim as advanced by his parent. The Court considered the best interests inquiry conducted by the Secretary of State but found in this case found that she had failed to take account of the implications for the child of the parent’s deteriorating mental health, the risk of that degenerating in the Nigerian context and the likely consequences on removal and so failed to have regard to the child’s best interests as a primary consideration. As this meant that the Secretary of State did not take into account material considerations or employ the anxious scrutiny required, her decision that the representations did not represent a realistic prospect of success in the fresh claim was flawed and judicial review was granted. •R (on the application of RA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00292 (IAC) NB: Following its judgment in R(on the application of RA (and by his litigation friend and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 00242 (IAC) 30 March 2015 above, the Upper Tribunal made an Order for the return of the child and her mother to the UK after they were removed to Nigeria. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was subsequently unsuccessful in her appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this Order. •AB and Others (internet activity – state of evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 0257 (IAC) The material put before the tribunal did not disclose a sufficient evidential basis for giving country or other guidance upon what, reliably, can be expected in terms of the reception in Iran for those returning otherwise than with a “regular” passport in relation to whom interest may be excited from the authorities into internet activity as might be revealed by an examination of blogging activity or a Facebook account. However, this determination is reported so that the evidence considered by the Upper Tribunal is available in the public domain. •AM (S 117B) Malawi [2015] UKUT 0260 (IAC) (1) The statutory duty to consider the matters set out in s 117B of the 2002 Act is satisfied if the Tribunal’s decision shows that it has had regard to such parts of it as are relevant. (2) An appellant can obtain no positive right to a grant of leave to remain from either s117B (2) or (3), whatever the degree of his fluency in English, or the strength of his financial resources. (3) Parliament has now drawn a sharp distinction between any period of time during which a person has been in the UK “unlawfully”, and any period of time during which that person’s immigration status in the UK was merely “precarious”. (4) Those who at any given date held a precarious immigration status must have held at that date an otherwise lawful grant of leave to enter or to remain. A person’s immigration status is “precarious” if their continued presence in the UK will be dependent upon their obtaining a further grant of leave. (5) In some circumstances it may also be that even a person with indefinite leave to remain, or a person who has obtained citizenship, enjoys a status that is “precarious” either because that status is revocable by the Secretary of State as a result of their deception, or because of their criminal conduct. In such circumstances the person will be well aware that he has imperilled his status and cannot viably claim thereafter that his status is other than precarious. (6) When the question posed by s117B(6) is the same question posed in relation to children by paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) it must be posed and answered in the proper context of whether it was reasonable to expect the child to follow its parents to their country of origin; EV (Philippines). It is not however a question that needs to be posed and answered in relation to each child more than once. •Adjei (visit visas – Article 8) [2015] UKUT 0261 (IAC) 1. The first question to be addressed in an appeal against refusal to grant entry clearance as a visitor where only human rights grounds are available is whether article 8 of the ECHR is engaged at all. If it is not, which will not infrequently be the case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to embark upon an assessment of the decision of the ECO under the 7 rules and should not do so. If article 8 is engaged, the Tribunal may need to look at the extent to which the claimant is said to have failed to meet the requirements of the rule because that may inform the proportionality balancing exercise that must follow.[1] Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) is not authority for any contrary proposition. 2. As compliance with para 41 of HC 395 is not a ground of appeal to be decided by the Tribunal, any findings concerning that will carry little weight, especially if based upon arguments advanced only by the appellant. If the appellant were to make a fresh application for entry clearance the ECO will, if requested to do so, have regard to the assessment carried out by the judge but will not be bound by those findings to treat the appellant as a person who, at least at the date of the appeal hearing, met the requirements of paragraph 41. [1] Footnote: Now see SS (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 387. •R (on the application of Wasif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (rule 34 – “print and send”) IJR [2015] UKUT 0270 (IAC) (i)An application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom must comply with the requirements of paragraph A34 and all material provisions of paragraphs 34A – 34K of the Immigration Rules. (ii)Between June 2013 and August 2014, Tier 4 applicants had the choice of submitting their applications either on line or by the “Print and Send” mechanism. (iii)The correct construction of the Rules is as follows: (a) The first of these options required the submission of the completed application form on line and the provision of supporting documents by post. ( The second option, “Print and Send”, required the applicant to print the completed application form and send it, with accompanying supporting documents, by post. The “Print and Send” instruction does not amount to an on-line application. (iv) A failure to comply with the requirements in 34A (per paragraph 34C) invalidates the application. •R (on the application of Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (s.3C(4): simultaneous application – withdrawal) IJR [2015] UKUT 0273 (IAC) S.3C(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 prohibits an application for leave to remain that is made on the same day as, and even if said to be simultaneous with, the applicant’s withdrawal of his appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).

Recent case-law •R (on the application of Zia and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00191 (IAC) Judicial Review of a Home Office refusal to grant leave to remain as a Tier 1 entrepreneur dismissed. The claimants argued that they had a legitimate expectation that their leave to remain application would succeed despite being unable to provide a specified bank document following information given to them by a Home Office telephone helpline operator. It was held that a legitimate expectation did not arise. The starting point is that the claimants have an expectation from the rule that they did not meet the requirements of the rule, the application would be refused. The claimants had made two telephone calls to the Home Office helpline. They spoke with a supervisor during their first call who made it clear that the decision would be made by a caseworker and he could not indicate how the application would be decided. The Court found that when the claimants received different information from a more junior member of the helpline staff, it was reasonable to expect them to have disclosed the content of the previous contradictory statement to the second operative in order to clarify. It was also not accepted that the claimants would have relied on the information given. The claimants further submitted that it was not possible for them to comply with the rules, the bank confirming it would not provide the document in the form required, but this argument was rejected on the basis that no evidence was offered that it was the universal practice of banks to decline such requests and no applicant would be able to comply •MK (section 55 – Tribunal options) Sierra Leone [2015] UKUT 00223 (IAC) (i)Where it is contended that either of the duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 has been breached, the onus rests on the appellant and the civil standard of the balance of probabilities applies. There is no onus on the Secretary of State. (ii)As regards the second of the statutory duties [the need to have regard to statutory guidance promulgated by the Secretary of State], it is not necessary for the decision letter to make specific reference to the statutory guidance. (iii)The statutory guidance prescribes a series of factors and principles which case workers and decision makers must consider. (iv)Where the Tribunal finds that there has been a breach of either of the section 55 duties, one of the options available is remittal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration and fresh decision. (v)In considering the appropriate order, Tribunals should have regard to their adjournment and case management powers, together with the overriding objective. They will also take into account the facilities available to the Secretary of State under the statutory guidance, the desirability of finality and the undesirability of undue delay. If deciding not to remit the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is sufficiently equipped to make an adequate assessment of the best interests of any affected child •R (on the application of Mushtaq) v Entry Clearance Officer of Islamabad, Pakistan (ECO – procedural fairness) IJR [2015] UKUT 00224 (IAC) (i)The common law principles of procedural fairness apply to the decision making processes of Entry Clearance Officers (“ECOs”). (ii)ECO interviews serve the basic twofold purpose of enabling applications to be probed and investigated and, simultaneously, giving the applicant a fair opportunity to respond to potentially adverse matters. The ensuing decison must accord with the principles of procedural fairness. (iii)A breach of the “Case Worker Guidance” may render the decision of an ECO unlawful. As a general rule, a challenge advanced on this basis will succeed only where Wednesbury irrationality or a material procedural irregularity is established NB: In this successful judicial review of a refusal to grant a Tier 4 student visa, the Court applied common law principles of procedural fairness to the assessment made by the Entry Clearance Officer as to whether the claimant was a genuine student. The decision is noteworthy as it sets out the claimant’s interview in some detail and examines each of the reasons for refusal given by the Entry Clearance Officer in context, finding both irrationality in the Wednesbury sense and procedural unfairness. The judgment concludes with the observation that entry clearance interviews require care and planning, the avoidance of ambiguous words and phrases and, in the interests of fairness, the opportunity for interviewees to clarify or expand on their answers: “The nationals of impoverished and deprived countries who have invested large sums of money and whose admission to the United Kingdom is lawful if they satisfy the requirements of the relevant legal rules are deserving of no less”. •JA (meaning of “access rights”) India [2015] UKUT 00225 (IAC) 1. Where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance or leave to remain as a parent. 2. “Access” in the latest version of the Immigration Rules means the same as “contact” in the previous paragraph 284A. Neither term is now used in the Family Court where Child Arrangements Orders are made to regulate “(a) with whom a child is to live, 3 spend time or otherwise have contact; and ( where a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact with any person.” 3. The expression “access rights” in paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i) may refer equally to parents who have “indirect” access to a child by means of letters, telephone calls etc as well as to those who spend time with a child (“direct” access). A parent may also have “access rights” where there is no court order at all, for example, where parents agree access arrangements (the “no order” principle; section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 (as amended)). 4. Having satisfied the requirements of paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i), an appellant must still prove that he/she “is taking and intend to continue to take an active role in the child’s upbringing”(paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (ii)). Whether he/she will be able to do so will depend upon the evidence rather than the nature of the “access rights.” However, it is likely to be unusual that a person having only “indirect” access rights will be able to satisfy this provision. In some cases, Tribunals may need to examine the reasons why the Family Court has ordered “indirect” rather then “direct” access. •R (on the application of Sultana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (mandatory order – basic principles) IJR [2015] UKUT 00226 (IAC) 1. In the great majority of cases where the court decides that the impugned decision is contaminated by some public law misdemeanour, the remedy granted is a quashing order whereby the respondent is obliged to make a fresh decision, taking into account the judgment of the court. 2. The remedy of a mandatory order is rarely granted. It is appropriate only in cases where it is clear to the court that the respondent is legally obliged to take a certain course of action, normally involving the conferral of some benefit or advantage on the challenging party, with no choice or discretion. The course that the respondent is ordered by the court to take in a mandatory order must be “the sole result that is legally permissible”.

Судья: совет UK BA может быть неправильным, и крайним будет иммигрант Собственно говоря: R (on the application of Zia and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00191 (IAC) Judicial Review of a Home Office refusal to grant leave to remain as a Tier 1 entrepreneur dismissed. The claimants argued that they had a legitimate expectation that their leave to remain application would succeed despite being unable to provide a specified bank document following information given to them by a Home Office telephone helpline operator. It was held that a legitimate expectation did not arise. The starting point is that the claimants have an expectation from the rule that they did not meet the requirements of the rule, the application would be refused. The claimants had made two telephone calls to the Home Office helpline. They spoke with a supervisor during their first call who made it clear that the decision would be made by a caseworker and he could not indicate how the application would be decided. The Court found that when the claimants received different information from a more junior member of the helpline staff, it was reasonable to expect them to have disclosed the content of the previous contradictory statement to the second operative in order to clarify. It was also not accepted that the claimants would have relied on the information given. The claimants further submitted that it was not possible for them to comply with the rules, the bank confirming it would not provide the document in the form required, but this argument was rejected on the basis that no evidence was offered that it was the universal practice of banks to decline such requests and no applicant would be able to comply.

Сроки рассмотрения заявлений на британские паспорта/гражданство из-за рубежа Информация получена через ILPA/UK BA. Обратите внимание, что сроки рассмотрения заявлений на гражданство/паспорт, поданные за пределами Великобритании могут достигать 1 года и более. Это связано с тем, что такие заявление передаются в Великобританию на рассмотрение и потом для проверки определенных фактов обратно в консульство Великобритании в той или иной стране для проверки определенных фактов по месте. Ускорить процедуру рассмотрения практически нельзя.

UK BA советуется с MAC насчет запрета работы для Tier 2 Dependents и т.п. Надеюсь, это останется а разряде «страшилок». Из циркуляра ILPA практикующим иммиграционным юристам: “The government has asked the MAC to consider: …. - Restriction on the automatic right of Tier 2 dependents to work; - Tightening the intra company transfer (ICT) route, including applying the immigration health surcharge to ICT ..... Пока все.

ETS – TOEFIL: Решение суда The Upper Tribunal has given judgment in a test case on ETS appeals and judicial reviews: R (on the application of Gazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ETS – judicial review) IJR [2015] UKUT 327 (IAC). Детально: <noindex>https://www.freemovement.org.uk/good-news-a..._eid=1af5cd4d48</noindex> Хорошего мало.

Immigration law updates, June 2015, part 2 •Home Office to UKCISA of 12 June 2015 re response to Freedom of Information request for caseworker guidance on the immigration health charge and, in particular, how caseworkers are instructed to deal with incorrect assessments by the portal: <noindex>http://legalcentre.org/files/FOI-res...r-guidance.pdf</noindex> •AA (Upper Tribunal – review power) Uzbekistan [2015] UKUT 00330 (IAC) 1. By virtue of rules 45 and 46 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 a condition precedent to a review is an application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal. 2. Pursuant to s.10 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, rules 45 and 46 make no provision for an application for a review; the power is exercisable only on the initiative of the Upper Tribunal. 3. The clear purpose behind rule 45, which is to provide a filter mechanism to help ensure that obvious errors based on oversight of a legislative provision or binding authority can be corrected (and set aside under rule 47) without unnecessarily burdening the Court of Appeal. •Oladeji (s.3(1) BNA 1981) [2015] UKUT 00326 (IAC) Whilst s.65 of the Immigration Act 2014, which came into force on 6 April 2015 inserts new provisions into the British Nationality Act 1981 for persons born before 1 July 2006 that create a registration route for those who would currently have an entitlement to registration under the British Nationality 1981 Act but for the fact that their parents are not married, those provisions (like the pre-existing policy set out in Chapter 9 of the UK Visas and Immigration and Nationality Instructions), are predicated on there having been an application made under s. 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981. •Measures to limit migrants’ access to benefits, Briefing Paper, House of Commons Library 17 June 2015: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....ummary/SN06889</noindex>

UK & EEA Immigration law update. June 2015. Part 1 1. Following the announcement in the Queen’s Speech of legislation that will be introduced, we now have further details of the Government’s parliamentary agenda for the forthcoming year. Absent from the Queen’s speech was any Bill to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Instead, the Government will “bring forward proposals” for a British Bill of Rights although it is not yet clear what form this consultation will take. The work starts now to maintain the principle of the universality of human rights in line with international standards and to resist discourses that descend into considerations of who should be able to access rights and on what conditions. As expected based on the Conservative Party Manifesto discussed in last month’s mailing, there will be another Immigration Bill this parliamentary year. The Government has confirmed that the clauses of the Bill will seek to extend non-suspensive appeals from deportation cases to all immigration appeals and judicial review where removal would not cause serious irreversible harm. This would not include asylum cases. We anticipate that it will not include those with 3C leave, but shall wait to see that this is confirmed. The Bill will propose making illegal working a crime and, it is stated, allowing the wages of migrant workers to be seized as proceeds of crime although whether the latter will require new powers is unclear. The Bill will propose the creation of a new single enforcement agency to tackle employers who exploit or coerce people into work in the UK. However, the proposal appears to be for a new monolithic agency rather than multi-disciplinary working. It is intended to create a new offence aimed at employment agencies who recruit solely from abroad without advertising those jobs in Britain and in English. There will be consultation on funding apprenticeship schemes for resident labour market workers (popularly referred to as “British workers”) through the implementation of a visa levy on businesses that use non EEA labour and the introduction of such a levy is intended for this parliamentary session. Through these measures, the Government intends to reduce the demand for skilled migrant labour. The Bill will propose a requirement that that all foreign offenders released on bail be tagged. Enforcement is to be stepped up although we do not yet know which legislative measures will support this. It is intended to extend throughout the country the residential tenancies scheme whereby landlords and landladies check the immigration status of their tenants. This does not require primary legislation but what does is the Government’s intention to build on this by making it easier to evict persons under immigration control. It is intended to ensure that banks take action on existing current accounts held by those in the UK unlawfully. Other areas of the legislative programme may potentially have an impact on persons under immigration control and also provide opportunities to make a positive case. The Refugee Children’s Consortium will be keeping a close eye on the Education and Adoption Bill and all those concerned with asylum support on the Full Employment and Welfare Benefits Bill. There is a proposal for an Extremism Bill to deal with “extremism” that is not extreme enough to fall within the ambit of counter-terrorism legislation, with proposals for new powers for the Home Secretary to ban “extremist” groups and to enable employers to check whether an individual is an “extremist”. Tier 1 Entrepreneurs The Home Office has confirmed that all Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) applicants must meet the Immigration Rules in force at the date of their application and thus that where they have not held the required level of funds for a consecutive period of 90 days, ending no earlier than 31 days before the date of the application as per Appendix A of the Immigration Rules they must provide the additional specified evidence required under paragraph 41-SD of that Appendix. Those who have liquidated assets less than 90 days before their proposed date of application, and are not able to provide the specified third party evidence must wait until they have had the funds under their control for 90 days. Biometric Residence Permits UK Visas and Immigration are offering larger sponsors or legal representatives new options for the collection of Biometric Residence Permits on behalf of their overseas staff or clients, depending on their expected volumes of Biometric Residence Permit applications. Large firms may either register as a Biometric Residence Permit Alternative Collection Location and receive Biometric Residence Permits at their office or nominate specific staff members to collect Biometric Residence Permits from the Post Office. Security requirements similar to those imposed on the Post Office will apply, including the need for nominated staff to be nationals of the EEA or Switzerland. The Home Office will start the scheme with a small number of firms or organisations before extending the offer more widely. The letter from Phillip Smith, Head of Immigration Checking & Enquiry Services at UK Visas and Immigration in the enclosures provides information on registration and guidance about the scheme. 2.Immigration statistics: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...Summary/SN06077</noindex> 3. Family members of students and Comprehensive Sickness Insurance – updated guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...of_students.pdf</noindex> 4. Criminal casework – Nationality and Identity guidence: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-identity-guide</noindex> 5. Entering the UK as a holder of Article 10 Residence Card: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-residence-card</noindex> 6. Long Residence guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-residence</noindex> 7. Home Office Guidance: Chapter 7A of UK Visas and Immigration nationality instructions on registering people born before 1 July 2006 whose parents were not married: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ty-instructions</noindex>

В июне 2015 впервые достигнут лимит сертификатов по категории Tier 2. Собственно говоря, в июне 2015 года впервые с момента появления программы Tier 2 был достигнут лимит выданных сертификатов: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-of-sponsorship</noindex>

Recent case-law: R (on the application of Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (s.3C(4): simultaneous application – withdrawal) IJR [2015] UKUT 0273 (IAC) S.3C(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 prohibits an application for leave to remain that is made on the same day as, and even if said to be simultaneous with, the applicant’s withdrawal of his appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). R (on the application of Wasif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (rule 34 – “print and send”) IJR [2015] UKUT 0270 (IAC) (i) An application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom must comply with the requirements of paragraph A34 and all material provisions of paragraphs 34A – 34K of the Immigration Rules. (ii) Between June 2013 and August 2014, Tier 4 applicants had the choice of submitting their applications either on line or by the “Print and Send” mechanism. (iii) The correct construction of the Rules is as follows: (a) The first of these options required the submission of the completed application form on line and the provision of supporting documents by post. ( The second option, “Print and Send”, required the applicant to print the completed application form and send it, with accompanying supporting documents, by post. The “Print and Send” instruction does not amount to an on-line application. (iv) A failure to comply with the requirements in 34A (per paragraph 34C) invalidates the application. R (on the application of Mushtaq) v Entry Clearance Officer of Islamabad, Pakistan (ECO – procedural fairness) IJR [2015] UKUT 00224 (IAC) 11 May 2015 (i) The common law principles of procedural fairness apply to the decision making processes of Entry Clearance Officers (“ECOs”). (ii) ECO interviews serve the basic twofold purpose of enabling applications to be probed and investigated and, simultaneously, giving the applicant a fair opportunity to respond to potentially adverse matters. The ensuing decison must accord with the principles of procedural fairness. (iii) A breach of the “Case Worker Guidance” may render the decision of an ECO unlawful. As a general rule, a challenge advanced on this basis will succeed only where Wednesbury irrationality or a material proceduralirregularity is established. Adjei (visit visas – Article 8) [2015] UKUT 0261 (IAC) 1. The first question to be addressed in an appeal against refusal to grant entry clearance as a visitor where only human rights grounds are available is whether article 8 of the ECHR is engaged at all. If it is not, which will not infrequently be the case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to embark upon an assessment of the decision of the ECO under the rules and should not do so. If article 8 is engaged, the Tribunal may need to look at the extent to which the claimant is said to have failed to meet the requirements of the rule because that may inform the proportionality balancing exercise that must follow.[1] Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) is not authority for any contrary proposition. 2. As compliance with para 41 of HC 395 is not a ground of appeal to be decided by the Tribunal, any findings concerning that will carry little weight, especially if based upon arguments advanced only by the appellant. If the appellant were to make a fresh application for entry clearance the ECO will, if requested to do so, have regard to the assessment carried out by the judge but will not be bound by those findings to treat the appellant as a person who, at least at the date of the appeal hearing, met the requirements of paragraph 41. AM (S 117B) Malawi [2015] UKUT 0260 (IAC) (1) The statutory duty to consider the matters set out in s 117B of the 2002 Act is satisfied if the Tribunal’s decision shows that it has had regard to such parts of it as are relevant. (2) An appellant can obtain no positive right to a grant of leave to remain from either s117B (2) or (3), whatever the degree of his fluency in English, or the strength of his financial resources. (3) Parliament has now drawn a sharp distinction between any period of time during which a person has been in the UK “unlawfully”, and any period of time during which that person’s immigration status in the UK was merely “precarious”. (4) Those who at any given date held a precarious immigration status must have held at that date an otherwise lawful grant of leave to enter or to remain. A person’s immigration status is “precarious” if their continued presence in the UK will be dependent upon their obtaining a further grant of leave. (5) In some circumstances it may also be that even a person with indefinite leave to remain, or a person who has obtained citizenship, enjoys a status that is “precarious” either because that status is revocable by the Secretary of State as a result of their deception, or because of their criminal conduct. In such circumstances the person will be well aware that he has imperilled his status and cannot viably claim thereafter that his status is other than precarious. (6) When the question posed by s117B(6) is the same question posed in relation to children by paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) it must be posed and answered in the proper context of whether it was reasonable to expect the child to follow its parents to their country of origin; EV (Philippines). It is not however a question that needs to be posed and answered in relation to each child more than once. R (on the application of Zia and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00191 (IAC) 11 May 2015 1.Where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance or leave to remain as a parent. 2.“Access” in the latest version of the Immigration Rules means the same as “contact” in the previous paragraph 284A. Neither term is now used in the Family Court where Child Arrangements Orders are made to regulate “(a) with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact; and ( where a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact with any person.” 3.The expression “access rights” in paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i) may refer equally to parents who have “indirect” access to a child by means of letters, telephone calls etc as well as to those who spend time with a child (“direct” access). A parent may also have “access rights” where there is no court order at all, for example, where parents agree access arrangements (the “no order” principle; section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 (as amended)). 4.Having satisfied the requirements of paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i), an appellant must still prove that he/she “is taking and intend to continue to take an active role in the child’s upbringing”(paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (ii)). Whether he/she will be able to do so will depend upon the evidence rather than the nature of the “access rights.” However, it is likely to be unusual that a person having only “indirect” access rights will be able to satisfy this provision. In some cases, Tribunals may need to examine the reasons why the Family Court has ordered “indirect” rather then “direct” access.

Immigration Act 2014 •The Upper Tribunal has held in R( Waqar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statutory appeals/paragraph 353) IJR [2015] UKUT 169 that the meaning of s 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as inserted by the Immigration Act 2014 is that only an application accepted as a “fresh claim” under paragraph 353 of the immigration rules will generate a right of appeal on refusal. The determination is difficult to square with the binding authority of the Supreme Court in BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2009] UKSC 7, albeit that BA was cited in the determination. It is therefore anticipated that this approach to the Act will be the subject of challenge. Fees •The Home Office has sought in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/768), to remove the automatic exemption from payment a fee for those granted limited leave to remain following refusal of asylum when extending that leave and has published a new instruction on fee waivers. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2015, which entered into force on 6 April 2015 may not, however, fully achieve that aim. See enclosure for full discussion: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ver-and-refunds</noindex> •NHS Charges The NHS Health Surcharge came into effect on 6 April 2015 along with the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/238) which accompany the changes to the definition of ordinary residence. The surcharge is £150 per year for students and £200 per year for other applicants, payable in full at the time of application. A whole host of problems have already been identified with the NHS surcharge payment process resulting in the overcharging of individuals. One such example is where regardless of whether a Tier 1 (investor) is applying for a two year extension of leave or a three year initial grant of leave, they will be required to pay a surcharge of £600. The Home Office has confirmed that the applicant must pay the full amount required and the overpayment will be refunded at a later date. Similarly, where a person is applying for a new job under Tier 2 (General), the full charge will apply to a second application even if there is an unused amount of leave on the first application. It will be possible to apply for a refund on the sum paid in connection with the first application, save where this relates to a period of less than six months. It would seem that a policy of “pay now, get a refund later” is developing. European Operational Policy •In response to a freedom of information request, the Home Office has released the latest batch of European Operational Policy notices. Despite the regularity of requests they have so far not put these on gov.uk. The latest batch includes those issued between 21 October and 10 April 2015. These cover: disclosure of interviewers comments; the January EEA forms, the EEA Modernised guidance (guidance on the guidance! – including the fascinating comment “Masterclass sessions on the modernised guidance will be available for all decision-makers who require it over the next few weeks) and the 6 April 2015 changes to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003). •Human rights in visit applications On 24 April 2015 the Home Office issued guidance on consideration of human rights in visit applications. This follows cases where refusals of visit visas have been challenged successfully on human rights grounds. The position taken is … that an application states that a human rights claim is being made does not determine whether the application is in fact a human rights claim. This distinction is important because it determines whether a right of appeal is available against the refusal of the application. If the application does not provide any supporting reasons or further detail about the human rights claim, for example if it says no more than “I am making a human rights claim” or “It is a breach of my rights under Article 8 not to allow me to come to the UK”, the application is not a human rights claim: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ce_v1_0_ext.pdf</noindex> •Policy paper: Chapter 8, section 1: spouses, UK Visas and Immigration, 27 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ection-1spouses</noindex> •Removal and deportation policy: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...rnal_final_.pdf</noindex> •Home Office Guidance: Indefinite leave to remain: calculating continuous period in UK, UK Visas and Immigration, 22 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...s_v12.0_EXT.pdf</noindex> •Policy paper: Immigration Rules part 9: grounds for refusal, UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and Home Office 17 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...on-rules-part-9</noindex> •Guidance -Tier 1 (Entrepreneur), UK Visas and Immigration, May 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ur_12.0_EXT.pdf</noindex> •Tier 4 of the Points Based System – Policy Guidance, UK Visas and Immigration, 15 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._April_15_f.pdf</noindex> •UK Visas and Immigration Guidance: Chapter 57: Right of abode (nationality instructions) April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ty-instructions</noindex> •Tier 2 of the Points Based System - Policy Guidance, UK Visas and Immigration, 13 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...nce_04_2015.pdf</noindex> •Guidance: Croatian casework - purple registration certificates, UK Visas and Immigration, 9 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...urple__v3_0.pdf</noindex> •Guidance: Turkish ECAA business guidance, UK Visas and Immigration, 8 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...siness_v5_0.pdf</noindex>

UK Immigration Law updates · Guidance: appeals policy, UK Visas and Immigration, 2 March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ce_v2.0_EXT.pdf</noindex> · Guidance: Section 65 of the Immigration Act 2014 – Children of British citizen fathers, UK Visas and Immigration, 26 March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._March_2015.pdf</noindex> · Immigration Bill: part 4 - marriage and civil partnership, UK Visas and Immigration and Enforcement, 31 March 2015 and Marriage and civil partnership referral and investigation scheme: statutory guidance for Home Office staff, 31 March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...March_2015_.pdf</noindex> and <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...vil-partnership</noindex> · Administrative Review Guidance, UK Visas and Immigration, 8 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ce_v4_0_ext.pdf</noindex> · Guidance: Immigration Act 2014: appeals, UK Visas and Immigration, 10 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/appeals</noindex> · UK visa fees from 6 April 2015, Home Office, 31 March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...s-revised-table</noindex> · Immigration and asylum: changes made by the Coalition Government 2010 - 2015, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 24 March 2015: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...Summary/SN05829</noindex> · Guidance: Chapter 1a: applications for fee waiver and refunds, UK Visas and Immigration, 7 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ver-and-refunds</noindex> · Tier 2 and 5 of the Points Based System, Guidance for Sponsors, UK Visas and Immigration 6 April 2015. New Tiers 2 and 5 Sponsor Guidance has been released effective from 6 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ance__v_1_1.pdf</noindex> and <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...dix_A_04-15.pdf</noindex> · Home Office notification of 6 April 2015 Tier 2 and Tier 5 changes, 2 April 2015: “Notification of changes taking place on 6 April 2015 Tier 2 From 6 April 2015 Tier 2 in country applications will need to be submitted via our new online application system. The current Apply Online (AOL) facility for Tier 2 will be withdrawn to make way for the new system, and the Tier 2 paper form will be removed from use for Standard and Priority Postal application routes. The Tier 2 paper form will remain in use for Premium Service Centre (PSC) customers only. Customers wishing to use a PSC should continue to book their appointment on-line and then download the paper form to take with them to their appointment. Premium Sponsors who use their Account Manager to secure a PSC appointment will be able to use the new online application. The link will be sent to them by their Account Manager when an appointment has been confirmed. Customers and their legal representatives are encouraged to use the new online service as soon as possible. Tier 5 The current Apply Online facility for Tier 5 will be withdrawn from 6 April 2015. Customers should use the paper form until further notice. For further information about the Tier 2 & 5 application process, please visit the Visas and Immigration section on GOV.UK. If you are a Premium Sponsor you can also contact your designated Account Manager for further information about any of the above changes. Immigration Health Surcharge From 6 April 2015, the UK government will introduce an immigration health surcharge: · The health surcharge will be paid by non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationals who apply to come to the UK to work, study or join family for a period of more than 6 months. It will also be paid by non-EEA nationals who are already in the UK and apply to extend their stay after 6 April 2015. There are some exempt groups who fall within the above categories but do not need to pay the surcharge: - Tier 2 intra-company transfers, Australian and New Zealand nationals. If an application falls within these exempt groups, the online Immigration Health Surcharge process, via the surcharge website, must still be completed. However, the applicant will be informed the payment is nil and they will receive a unique surcharge reference number. This number is needed for their immigration application to confirm their exemption from the surcharge. Customer guidance will be available on www.gov.uk/visas-immigration from 6 April.” · USA: Apply for a UK visa in the USA: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...y-for-a-uk-visa</noindex> · Guidance: Transit visitors, UK Visas and Immigration, 17 March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transit-visitors</noindex> · Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) overseas applicant project FAQ, Home Office, 16 March 2015. From the UK BA: “Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) overseas applicant project FAQ, Home Office, 16 March 2015 Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) for non-EEA nationals travelling to the UK for more than six months will begin to be issued from the 18th March 2015, starting with applications made in Pakistan. BRPs provide a more secure, streamlined and faster method for applicants and businesses to verify someone's identity and right to be in the UK. The rollout will continue in three further phases from mid April (inc. China and India), end May (inc. Japan and Nigeria) and end July (rest of the world). Applicants will receive a 30 day vignette in their passport instead of a vignette with the full grant of leave. This is to allow the applicant to enter the UK and collect their BRP from a designated post office. The post office and 30 day travel window will be determined using information provided in the application form. Applicants will receive a letter, if their application is successful, which provides instructions on how to collect their BRP and where to go for more information - GOV.UK. Details of the countries included in each phase of the rollout are attached for information, along with a customer-facing Q&A that can be used to answer any questions that applicants might have. Further guidance along will be published on Gov.UK on 18 March.”. · Immigration Rules archive, UK Visas and Immigration, 6 March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/a...migration-rules</noindex> · Comprehensive sickness insurance for family members of EEA students: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...of_students.pdf</noindex> · The Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, Consolidated Version at 6 April 2015: <noindex>http://www.eearegulations.co.uk/Archive/V20150406</noindex> Case-law: Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 00112 (IAC), 5 March 2015 In the case of appeals brought against refusal of entry clearance under Article 8 ECHR, the claimant’s ability to satisfy the Immigration Rules is not the question to be determined by the Tribunal, but is capable of being a weighty, though not determinative, factor when deciding whether such refusal is proportionate to the legitimate aim of enforcing immigration control. R (on the application of Razak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00132 (IAC), 3 February 2015 The judicial review of refusal of application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant. The claim was refused. R (on the application of Singh and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00134(IAC), 19 February 2015 Judicial review of the decision to certify the Claimants human rights claim (on the basis of long residence and Article 8) as clearly unfounded. It was found that insufficient evidence had been put forward to justify consideration of the claim outside of the Immigration Rules. The claim was refused. R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00135 (IAC), 26 February 2015 Judicial review of the lawfulness of refusal of leave to remain on human rights grounds. Permission is refused on the basis that adequate consideration was given to claimants Article 8 rights. R (on the application of Dang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00133 (IAC), 19 February 2015 Judicial review of the decision to not grant leave to remain following an application for asylum and consideration of the Claimant’s claim under the legacy policy. The Claimant claims that she received a letter following her application from the Home Office that created a “legitimate expectation” that she would be allowed to remain in the UK. The Judge found that the Claimant had not acted to her detriment at all as a result of this letter. The claim was dismissed. R (on the application of SB and ABD) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00136(IAC), 3 March 2015 Application to judicially review lawfulness of Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to prohibit recourse to public funds on a grant of limited leave to remain. The Judge found that insufficient evidence was adduced at the application stage to show that the Claimants were destitute and therefore the Secretary of State wasn’t under an obligation to exercise her discretion to allow access to public funds. The Judge found that the decision taken was one which was rationally open to her. The claim was dismissed. R (on the application of Shahzad) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00137 (IAC), 6 March 2015 Application for judicial review of decision to refuse leave under Appendix FM. Application was dismissed. R (on the application of Zhang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00138(IAC), 6 March 2015 Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) refused entry clearance and requested and administrative review. Having reviewed the Applicant’s case an Entry Clearance Manager maintained the decision to refuse entry clearance. The judicial review application was dismissed as it was found that a suitable remedy, that of administrative review had been available to the Claimant.

· Guidance: Studying under Tier 4 of the points-based system, UK Visas and Immigration 17 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...4190/T4_v31.pdf</noindex> · Policy paper: Immigration Rules part 9: grounds for refusal, UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and Home Office 21 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...on-rules-part-9</noindex> · Home Office guidance: Where to apply: ECB05, UK Visas and Immigration, 24 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-to-apply-ecb05</noindex> · Home Office guidance: Considering human rights claims in visit applications, UK Visas and Immigration, 24 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ce_v1_0_ext.pdf</noindex> · Policy paper: Chapter 8, section 1: spouses, UK Visas and Immigration, 27 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ection-1spouses</noindex> · Home Office Immigration Directorate Instructions - Family Migration: Part 8: Annex F and Appendix FM Section 1.7A, Adequate Maintenance and Accommodation, 27 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._Annex_1.7A.pdf</noindex> · Original BRPs are now required to be submitted to the UK BA with the naturalization applications · Home Office Guidance: Indefinite leave to remain: calculating continuous period in UK, UK Visas and Immigration, 22 April 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...s_v12.0_EXT.pdf</noindex>