British Lawyer

· Updated UK BA Administrative Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ce_v4_0_ext.pdf</noindex> · R (on the application of Khadija BA Fakih) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2014] UKUT 00513(IAC) The applicant challenged the imposition of a “no recourse to public funds” condition on her leave on grounds that it was made pursuant to a ‘rule’ that was unlawful by reason of not having been laid before Parliament and breached public sector equality duties. The Secretary of State’s decision to impose the condition was quashed on the basis that it was pursuant to an unlawful policy · Updated Tier 2 Policy Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...nce_04_2015.pdf</noindex> · Updated Tier 4 Policy Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._April_15_f.pdf</noindex> · Register of Tier 2 and Tier 5 sponsors list: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ponsors-workers</noindex> · Updated Tier 1 Entrepreneur Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...reneur_11_0.pdf</noindex> ·

Ссылка для оплаты NHS Surcharge С 06-04-2015 в соответствующих анкетах появилась графа о предоставлении номера NHS Surcharge Number. Вот ссылка для оплаты NHS Surcharge: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application</noindex> Оплачивать NHS Surcharge нужно (для соответствующих категорий) до подачи заявления в UK BA, иначе заявления могут не рассмотреть/задержать.

•Updated chapter 18: naturalisation at discretion (nationality instructions): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Chapter_18.pdf</noindex> •Section 65 of the Immigration Act 2014 Guidance – Children of British Citizen Fathers: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...March_2015.pdf</noindex> •Application to register as British citizen: form RS1 •Application to register as a British citizen: form B(OS) •Application to register as British citizen: form T •Application to naturalise as a British citizen: form AN •Application to register as a British citizen: form B(OTA) •Application to register child under 18 as British citizen: form MN1 •Application to register as a British citizen: form UKM •Application for registration as a British citizen by a person born before 1 July 2006 whose parents were not married: form UKF •Marriage and civil partnership referral and investigation scheme: statutory guidance for Home Office staff: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...arch_2015_.pdf</noindex> •Sponsor a Tier 4 student: guidance for educators: The UK BA included a new policy that Tier 4 sponsors that have had their licences revoked have to wait two years to reapply instead of the current 6 months. The UK BA also say they may refuse a licence application or renewal application if any of the key personnel have been involved with/linked to a licence that has been revoked: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-for-educators</noindex> •General grounds for refusal: considering entry at UK port •General grounds for refusal: refusing and refusal wording •General grounds for refusal: considering leave to remain •General grounds for refusal: about this guidance •General grounds for refusal (modernised guidance) •Guidance: General grounds for refusal: considering entry clearance •UK BA latest documents: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/latest?departments</noindex>[]=uk-visas-and-immigration •Tier 2 From 6 April 2015 Tier 2 in country applications will need to be submitted via the UK BA 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 via GOV.UK 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. •Asylum Policy Instruction Further Submissions: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...sions_v8_0.pdf</noindex> •UK BA Appeals policy: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e_v2.0_EXT.pdf</noindex> •Curtailment of leave: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/public...lment-of-leave</noindex> •The Latest Consolidated Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations: <noindex>http://www.eearegulations.co.uk/Latest</noindex> •Modernized guidance on appeals: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/appeals</noindex> •Tier 2 and 5 of the Points Based System Guidance for Sponsors: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ance_04-15.pdf</noindex> •Tier 2, Tier 4 and Tier 5 of the Points Based System - Guidance for Sponsors – Appendix A: file:///C:/Users/Anton/Downloads/15.04.06-Tier-2-and-5-of-the-Points-Based-System-Guidance-for-Sponsors-Appendix-A.pdf

IMMIGRATION HEALTH SURCHARGE с 06-04-2015 Собственно говоря: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...on-for-migrants</noindex> Цитата: "The surcharge will be introduced on 6 April 2015. It will apply to applications where payment is made on or after the 6 April. The health surcharge will be set at £200 a year for temporary migrants and £150 a year for students. Dependants will generally be charged the same amount as their main applicant. The total surcharge amount for the whole period of leave granted will be payable upfront.".

•Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 00112 Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC), 19 December 2014 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 •BIOMETRIC RESIDENCE PERMIT (BRP) – OVERSEAS APPLICANT PROJECT FAQ: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org/files/BRP.pdf</noindex> 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. •Tier 4 Sponsor Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...e-for-educators</noindex> •Immigration Rules – Introductions – Consolidated Version 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ntroduction.pdf</noindex> •Summary of responses to the consultation on proposed amendments to the Code of Practice about the sanctions for non-compliance with the biometric registration regulations March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._March_2015.pdf</noindex> •Chapters 46 to 62: detention and removals: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...on-and-removals</noindex> •Immigration Rules Part 11 Asylum: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...s_-_Part_11.pdf</noindex> •HOME OFFICE VISITOR SIMPLIFICATION CONSULTATION RESPONSE: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org/files/visitor%2...n%20process.pdf</noindex> •Chapter 18: naturalisation at discretion (nationality instructions): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ty-instructions</noindex> •Post-Study Work Opportunities in the UK - New report warns UK at risk of losing foothold in crucial international student market, since Government closure of popular post study work route: <noindex>http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/post-study-work-inquiry</noindex> •Section 65 of the Immigration Act 2014 – Children of British Citizen Fathers: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._-_Feb_2015.pdf</noindex> •Business applications under the Turkish EC Association Agreement: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...idance_v2_0.pdf</noindex> •Derivative rights of residence guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...idence_v1_0.pdf</noindex> •Informal consultation on introducing a proforma template for an asylum, nationality and immigration Pre-Action Protocol letter: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...tion-on-pap.pdf</noindex> •Judicial Review (JR) guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ance1_v0_11.pdf</noindex> •UK BA complaints management guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...dance-version-7</noindex> •Processing statistics for EEA3, EEA4 and AN application forms for 2014: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-forms-for-2014</noindex> •Request for a change of conditions of leave granted on the basis of family or private life: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...e-condition.pdf</noindex>

•Partial review of the Shortage Occupation Lists for the UK and for Scotland: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...land_Report.pdf</noindex> •List of tests approved by UK Visas and Immigration to show that applicants have the required level of English for their visa: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-language-tests</noindex> •Immigration Act 2014: appeals; Immigration Rules Appendix AR: Administrative Review 2 March 2015; Immigration Rules Part 1 Statutory Instrument No. 371 (C. 18) The Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions and Amendment) Order 2015, 25 February 2015 Rules Appendix AR: Administrative Review 2 March 2015; Immigration Rules Part 1 The Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions and Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/371 (C.18)) has been published and comes into effect variously on 2 March 2015 and 6 April 2015. It is the fourth commencement order made under the Immigration Act 2014. It will remove appeal rights for those who make an application under Tiers 1, 2 and 5, including dependants a Tier 2 Migrant, or a Tier 5 Migrant, or as their family member, on or after 2nd March 2015. Those persons will also become subject to the new removals regime. In other words they will be treated in the same way as Tiers 4 and foreign criminals as defined are currently treated As to commencement on 6 April 2015, the provisions could not be more confusingly drafted. First you will be alarmed to read that the new regime will come in, according to the commencement order, for all decisions made on or after that date, in all categories. However, scroll down and you will learn that there are huge exceptions: these being decisions • to refuse leave to enter; • to refuse entry clearance; • to refuse a certificate of entitlement under section 10 of the 2002 Act(a); • to refuse to vary a person’s leave to enter or remain and where the result of that decision is that the person has no leave to enter or remain; (in all cases unless that decision is also a refusal of an asylum, protection or human rights claim) where the application was made before 6 April. There are also saving provisions for refusals of applications to vary leave to enter or remain made before 20 October 2014 where the person was seeking leave to remain as a Tier 4 Migrant or as their family member and where the result of that decision is that the applicant has no leave to enter or remain; refusals of applications to vary leave to enter or remain made before March 2015 where the person was seeking leave to remain as a Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 5 Migrant or as their family member and where the result of that decision is that the applicant has no leave to enter or remain. The order also commences provisions relating to marriage and civil partnership on 1 and 2 March 2015. There are transitional provisions for licences granted pre 1 March 2015. It amends section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to remove provisions about the use and retention of biometric information which have been replaced by section 126(8A) of that Act, which was inserted by section 14(3) of the Act. •Children of British citizen fathers: become a British citizen: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...british-citizen</noindex> •Dube (ss.117A-117D) [2015] UKUT 00090 Immigration and Asylum Tribunal (IAC), 26 February 2015 (1) Key features of ss.117A-117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 include the following: (a) judges are required statutorily to take into account a number of enumerated considerations. Sections 117A-117D are not, therefore, an a la carte menu of considerations that it is at the discretion of the judge to apply or not apply. Judges are duty-bound to “have regard” to the specified considerations. ( these provisions are only expressed as being binding on a “court or tribunal”. It may be that the Secretary of State will consider it in the interests of good administration and consistency of decision-making on Article 8 claims at all levels to have express regard to ss.117A-117D considerations herself, but she is not directly bound to do so. © whilst expressed in mandatory terms, the considerations specified are not expressed as being exhaustive: note use of the phrase “in particular” in s.117A(2): “ In considering the public interest question, the court or tribunal must (in particular) have regard— “. (d) section 117B enumerates considerations that are applicable “in all cases”, which must include foreign criminal cases. Thus when s.117C (which deals with foreign criminals) states that it sets out “additional” considerations that must mean considerations in addition to those set out in s.117B. (e) sections 117A-117D do not represent any kind of radical departure from or “override” of previous case law on Article 8 so far as concerns the need for a structured approach. In particular, they do not disturb the need for judges to ask themselves the five questions set out in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27. Sections 117A-117D are essentially a further elaboration of Razgar’s question 5 which is essentially about proportionality and justifiability. (2) It is not an error of law to fail to refer to ss.117A-117D considerations if the judge has applied the test he or she was supposed to apply according to its terms; what matters is substance, not form. •Cushnie v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 3626, 5 November 2014 The High Court has declared that in framing regulations for the charging of treatment provided to overseas visitors the Secretary of State for Health acted in breach of his public sector equality duty under s.149 Equality Act 2010. The current rules are set out in the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011. These provide that former asylum seekers accommodated by the Home Office should have free access to health care but that those who are disabled, and as a result are looked after by their local authority, should not. The court held that while this did not amount to unlawful discrimination, in framing the regulations the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to have regard to the differential impact on disabled persons. The Secretary of State has confirmed that the regulations are under review.

•New proposed UK BA fees: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...015-to-2016.pdf</noindex> Current FLR(M) (11-2014) version error: UK BA: “A box for the original certificate to confirm evidence of a degree studied in English has been included in the FLR(M) application form since the introduction of the English language requirement. But it appears that this option was lost when a recent update to that section of the form was made” •Current guidance on Section 3C and 3D Leave: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/3c-and-3d-leave</noindex> •New EEA Forms: EEA(EFM) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...er-form-eea-efm</noindex> ,EEA(QP) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...son-form-eea-qp</noindex> , EEA(PR) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ard-form-eea-pr</noindex>, EEA(DRF1) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...in-uk-form-drf1</noindex> , EEA(FM) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ber-form-eea-fm</noindex> •Marriage or civil partnership of detainees outside the centre <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...side-the-centre</noindex> mmigration Directorates' Instructions Deporting non-EEA foreign criminals: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...reign-criminals</noindex> •The number of applications received in the last 5 years (Jan-2010 to Jun-2014), - split by whether the applicant was an adult or a child: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...8/FOI_33561.pdf</noindex> •The term “settled worker” for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) ILR application may include the family members of an EEA national •Asylum Policy Instruction Assessing credibility and refugee status: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...STATUS_V9_0.pdf</noindex> •R (on the application of Mehmood Ahmed Raja) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00058 (IAC) This was an application for judicial review regarding the Secretary of State’s refusal of a long residence application and related Article 8 claim. An earlier judicial review regarding the first of three refusals to grant leave by the Secretary of State was settled. The judge held that as the relevant consent order did not specifically refer to Article 8 EHCR this omission meant that the applicant’s claim under that head (against the first decision) had come to an end. He could not now argue that the Secretary of State had breached the terms of the order. The judge however went on to consider the Secretary of State’s consideration of Article 8 in the third decision. That decision was quashed for failure to consider relevant evidence (a witness statement from the applicant’s partner – a naturalised refugee – explaining why she could not go with him to Pakistan). The judge held that the Secretary of State had treated age 18 as a as a “bright line beyond which family life is not enjoyed” and that this was “plainly incorrect”. The applicant’s partner’s son was not living independently and had arguable family life ties with the applicant as part of a family unit. The decision fell to be remade. •Bossadi (paragraph 276ADE; suitability; ties) [2015] UKUT 00042 (IAC) (1) Being able to meet the requirements of paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules requires being able to meet the suitability requirements set out in paragraph 276ADE(1). It is because this subparagraph contains suitability requirements that it is not possible for foreign criminals relying on private life grounds to circumvent the provisions of the Rules dealing with deportation of foreign criminals. (2) The requirement set out in paragraph 276ADE (vi) (in force from 9 July 2012 to 27 July 2014) to show that a person “is aged 18 years or above, has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) but has no ties (including social, cultural or family) with the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK”, requires a rounded assessment as to whether a person’s familial ties could result in support to him in the event of his return, an assessment taking into account both subjective and objective considerations and also consideration of what lies within the choice of a claimant to achieve. •MR (permission to appeal: Tribunal’s approach) Brazil [2015] UKUT 00029 (IAC) (1) A judge considering an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal must avoid granting permission on what, properly analysed, is no more than a simple quarrel with the First-tier Tribunal judge’s assessment of the evidence. (2) When granting permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, it is unsatisfactory merely to state that the applicant’s grounds are arguable. (3) The requirement, emphasised in Nixon (permission to appeal: grounds) [2014] UKUT 368 (IAC), to engage with each and every ground of application, need not involve anything of an unduly elaborate, burdensome or analytical nature. The reasons for granting or refusing permission to appeal, in whole or part, in any given case will almost invariably be capable of being expressed in a concise and focused manner. •Cancino (costs – First-tier Tribunal – new powers) [2015] UKFTT 00059 (IAC) [1] Rule 9 of the 2014 Rules operates in conjunction with section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. [2] The only powers to award fees or costs available to the First-tier Tribunal (the “FtT”) are those contained in Rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (the “2014 Rules”). [3] Transitionally, Rule 9 of the 2014 Rules applies only to appeals coming into existence subsequent to the commencement date of 20 October 2014. It has no application to appeals predating this date. [4] It is essential to be alert to the distinctions between the costs awarding powers contained in Rule 9(2)(a) and Rule 9(2)( of the 2014 Rules. [5] Awards of costs are always discretionary, even in cases where the qualifying conditions are satisfied. [6] In the ordinary course of events, where any of the offending types of conduct to which either Rule 9(2)(a) or Rule 9(2)( of the 2014 Rules applies, the FtT will normally exercise its discretion to make an order against the defaulting representative or party. [7] The onus rests on the party applying for an order under Rule 9. [8] There must be a causal nexus between the conduct in question and the wasted costs claimed. [9] One of the supreme governing principles is that every case will be unavoidably fact sensitive. Accordingly, comparisons with other cases will normally be inappropriate. [10] Orders for costs under Rule 9 will be very much the exception, rather than the rule and will be reserved to the clearest cases. [11] Rule 9 of the 2014 Rules applies to conduct, whether acts or omissions, belonging to the period commencing on the date when an appeal comes into existence and ending on the date of the final determination thereof. [12] The procedure for determining applications under Rule 9 of the 2014 Rules will be governed in the main by the principles of fairness, expedition and proportionality. •R (on the application of Kallal Taludker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00057 (IAC) This was a student visa appeal (Tier 4) in which the applicant did not appear and the case was determined to be an abuse of process, as the matter had been previously litigated in a High Court challenge to the applicant’s removal decision. •Recent changes to the Tier 1 (Investor) requirements. Following a report published by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) in 2014, the Home Office made a number of changes to the Tier 1 (Investor) category on 6 November 2014. These include: • increasing the previous £1m minimum investment threshold to £2m; • requiring the full investment sum to be invested in prescribed forms of investments (share or loan capital in active and trading UK companies, or UK Government bonds), rather than 75% of the sum as was previously the case (the remaining 25% could previously be invested in UK assets, such as property); • removing the requirement to maintain the market value of the investment.

•Request for a change of conditions of leave granted on the basis of family or private life <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...e-condition.pdf</noindex> •The total number of rejections made on Long Residence category in 2014: 845 cases rejected : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-september-2014</noindex> •Applications for naturalisation received from 1 May 2014 to 30 June 2014: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...97098/33753.pdf</noindex>

Расценки на стоимость "виз" UK BA в 2015/2016 гг Собственно говоря: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...015-to-2016.pdf</noindex>

А вместо EEA1 и EEA2 теперь есть форма EEA(FM) ...на 129 страницах : <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...A_FM__01-15.pdf</noindex>

Вместо EEA3 и EEA4 теперь 1 форма - EEA(PR) на 121 страницу ! <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...A_PR__01-15.pdf</noindex>

Легализация родителей-нелегалов через детей, проживших в UK 7 лет. В 2012 года обратилась семейная пара, живущая в UK нелегально. У них в UK родились дети. В 2012 году старшему было 7 лет, младшему – 3 года. Подали заявление по категории, которую на простом языке можно описать как «легализация через ребенка, прожившего в UK 7 лет» до изменения Правил в 2013 году. В 2013 (после изменения Правил) пришел отказ без права апелляции. Подали на пересмотр. Пересмотр занял 1 с лишним года. Вместо решения UK BA прислали дополнительную анкету с вопросами – было похоже, что UK BA потеряли ранее поданные и не знали, на основании чего клиенты просили статус. Отослали дополнительную анкету. К этому времени на Украине началась АТО. Клиенты были из зоны АТО. Дослали в UK BA “напоминание" о том, что сейчас происходит на Украине, приложили информацию из авторитетных источников. Подходил к концу 2014 год. В декабре 2014 года UK BA прислали еще одну анкету, которая по своему содержанию походила на анкету для просящих убежище. Анкету заполнили, но я указал на то, что клиенты не просят убежище, а подавали на получение статуса на основании того, что их старший ребенок прожил в стране уже не только 7 лет, а на тот момент уже почти 10 лет и, соответственно, их ребенок мог бы быть зарегистрирован как британский малолетний гражданин. В начале января 2015 года всей семье пришло приглашение на сдачу биометрики. В середине января 2015 года я подал заявление на регистрацию старшего ребенка как британского малолетнего гражданина, т.к. к тому времени ребенок прожил без выезда из UK 10 лет. Одновременно дослал в отдел UK BA, занимающимся рассмотрением первоначального дела о легализации всей семьи подтверждение о том, что уже было подано на регистрацию старшего ребенка как британского малолетнего гражданина. Сегодня (через 2 недели) курьер DX принес невзрачный конверт, с BRP на 2.5 года. То есть, как пример, родитель получил статус по категории «10 Year Route”. Такую визу нужно будет продлять еще 4 раза, чтобы такой родитель после 10 лет мог подать на ILR. Весь процесс занял 2.5 года. Собственно, все.

Обновился т.н. Booklet AN, включая "The Good Character Requirement" То, о чем я писал в конце 2014 года - ужек происходит. Для тех, кто не не имеет возможности месяцами изучать 52 главы Naturalization Instructions :-) Собственно говоря: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...t_dec_2014.pdf</noindex> Всего 22 страницы :-) Более-менее понятно, в течение какого периода нельзя подавать за то или иное нарушение. Так же указывается то, что за прошлый обман и другие плохие посупки в прошлом так же будут влиять на возможность получить гражданство. Для тех, кто имел в прошлом проблемы с законом или нарушения, которые могут ТЕПЕРЬ привести к отказу в заявлении на гражданство, могут ознакомиться с детальным документом (уже 31 страница) под названием The Good Character Requirement: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eb_version.pdf</noindex> Получить гражданство Великобритании сейчас становится сложнее...

Гостевая виза- NHS - отказы в визе жены британца Собственно, наблюдаю следующие сценарии. Приезжает, скажем, гражданка Казахстана к своему парню-британцу по госевой визе. Беременеет. Виза заканчивается. Рожает ребенка в Великобритании. Уезжает домой получать визу "ПМЖ" как жена британца. Получет отказ на основании того, что находять в UK по гостевой визе и потом нелегально, пользовалась услугами NHS. UK VAC даже прилагает копию счета из NHS, который UK VAC так любезно получил из NHS. В отказе так и сказанно - "...не оплачен счет из NHS...". Видел счета разные...от 5000 до 15 000. Обратите внимание, что в таком случае, чтобы "жене британца" получить визу нужно будет оплатить счет NHS ДО подачи заявления на визу жены.

С 02-03-2015 о браках с non-EEA будут докладывать в UK BA <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...iage_notice.pdf</noindex> If you and/or your partner are a non-EEA national with limited or no immigration status in the UK, or if you or your partner do not provide specified evidence of your immigration status, your proposed marriage or civil partnership will be referred to the Home Office and your notice period may be extended to 70 days. In giving notice you should therefore allow sufficient time before the date of your planned marriage or civil partnership recognising that 70 days notice may be required. Registration officials will be required to refer all marriage and civil partnership notices to the Home Office if one or both of the parties is a non-EEA national who does not provide specified evidence that they have (a) settled status in the UK (Indefinite Leave to Enter or Remain), ( an EU law right of permanent residence in the UK, © a marriage or civil partnership visa, or (d) exemption from immigration control (e.g. with the right of abode in the UK). Registration officials will be required to tell a couple where their proposed marriage or civil partnership is to be referred to the Home Office under the scheme and to explain to them the implications of this.

Obligatory referral to the UK BA in certain cases: Giving notice of marriage or civil partnership from the 2nd March 2015: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...age_notice.pdf</noindex> “If you and/or your partner are a non-EEA national with limited or no immigration status in the UK, or if you or your partner do not provide specified evidence of your immigration status, your proposed marriage or civil partnership will be referred to the Home Office and your notice period may be extended to 70 days. In giving notice you should therefore allow sufficient time before the date of your planned marriage or civil partnership recognising that 70 days notice may be required.” R (on the application of Jennifer Kerr) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2014] UKUT 00493(IAC) The applicant was a Jamaican woman who had lived in Jamaica until age 37, then came to the UK on a 6-month visit visa and overstayed. She married a British national and a year later, having had 11 years unlawful residence in the UK, applied for leave to remain on Article 8 grounds outside the rules. The Secretary of State refused on the basis that she did not meet the Rules. The Court held that the decision was unlawful, because it had failed to give any consideration to the possibility of an exceptional grant outside the rules – even the barest of reference would have sufficed, but there was none. After the judicial review was lodged the Secretary of State issued a new decision, considering all of the facts that were relevant to a possible grant outside the Rules, and again refused on the basis it was not disproportionate to require the appellant to make an entry clearance application from Jamaica. The Court rejected an argument that the second decision letter should be ignored – it is relevant to the remedy the Court should grant. If the second decision is a lawful one it does not remedy the defect in the original decision under challenge, which remains unlawful. However the Court will do no more than quash it and will not order the decision to be remade if it has already been made. R (on the application of Eruteji Ibipeju Bosomo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2014] UKUT 00492(IAC) This was an Article 8 case where the application for leave was subjected to a “tick box” exercise under the Immigration Rules without any consideration given to the detailed information provided by the appellant that was relevant to a possible grant of leave outside the Rules; this was unlawful. In response to the judicial review the Secretary of State issued a new decision, however this was a mere repetition of the earlier unlawful decision and similarly failed to consider the voluminous material submitted by the appellant. Judicial review was granted and the Secretary of State’s remaking of the decision had no effect on the question of relief, as the second decision was again unlawful. R (on the application of Michael Mosinimu Mark Akande) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKUT 00468 (IAC) Facts: The appellant made an online application for extension of his leave as a student on the day it expired. He paid the fee on that day and lodged the application online, choosing the “premium service”. The Secretary of State argued that his actual date of application was the date of his appointment at UKBA (as it then was) offices in Sheffield, which was three days later, making his application out of time. The Secretary of State also argued that the appellant did not have enough funds to satisfy the Rules, as it was not accepted that his uncle was his legal guardian and thus his uncle’s funds could not be taken into account. The appellant argued that (i) the date of his online application was the relevant date, (ii) the Secretary of State was wrong to disregard the financial sponsorship of his uncle, who is in fact his legal guardian, and (iii) the Secretary of State failed to consider his claim under Art 8 of the ECHR. Decision: As to the question of the date of application, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Secretary of State on the matter and held that the application was not submitted until the date of the in-person appointment, three days after leave had expired. On the second issue, the appellant had not provided the requisite documentation to the Secretary of State to establish his uncle’s guardianship, so this ground of challenge was not made out. Finally, the Tribunal held that the appellant’s Article 8 claim was weak and the Secretary of State could not be faulted for refusing it. The appeal was dismissed.

ПОЗИТИВ: Surinder Singh, теперь Kamila Santos Campelo Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kamila Santos Campelo Cain Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/40868/2013 (17 October 2014) The appellant was a Brazilian national who wished to join her British partner in the UK. Her partner had been exercising EU free movement rights prior to his returning to the UK. The appellant argued that the principles laid down in Surinder Singh [1992] EUECJ C-370/90 should be applied to her case. The Tribunal agreed. It held that the EEA Regulations discriminated against British versus EEA nationals – had the appellant’s partner been an EEA national she would have been able to enter under the Regulations. The Regulations were thus out of step with the underlying principle of free movement in EU Community law. The appellant’s partner was a British national exercising Treaty Rights and fell to be treated as an EEA national as a result. The appeal was allowed, but not outright – the Tribunal noting that the Secretary of State retains a discretion as to whether or not to grant the appellant her residence card.

Recent GOV.UK updates: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/latest?depart...-immigration%20</noindex> ‘Visa bans’: Powers to refuse or revoke immigration permission for reasons of character, conduct or associations - Commons Library Standard Note: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/S...or-associations</noindex> Immigration Statistics, July to September 2014: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-september-2014</noindex> New SET(LR) form: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...n-uk-form-setlr</noindex> & Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...notes_08-14.pdf</noindex> Tier 2 Modernized Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...r_2_v18_Ext.pdf</noindex> An Inspection of Nationality Casework April - May 2014, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and response from Home Office, 11 December 2014: <noindex>http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-c...-Report-web.pdf</noindex> Application for certificate showing right of abode: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-right-of-abode</noindex> R (on the application of Luma Sh Khairdin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (NIA 2002: Part 5A) IJR [2014] UKUT 00566 (IAC) (1) Section 117A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 requires the Upper Tribunal, in a judicial review involving Article 8(2) ECHR, to have regard to the considerations mentioned in section 117B and, where relevant, section 117C, when considering the question whether an interference with a person's right to respect for private and family life is justified. The nature of the proceedings is such as to require the Tribunal to determine the questions set out in section 117(1)(a) and (. (2) Where the Upper Tribunal is considering, pursuant to section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, whether there is an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involving Article 8 proportionality, the task of the Upper Tribunal is confined (at that point) to deciding if the First-tier Tribunal's assessment of where to strike the balance was unlawful, according to the error of law principles set out in R (Iran) [2005] EWCA Civ 982. An Article 8(2) decision of the Secretary of State which is susceptible only to judicial review has, by definition, not received such judicial scrutiny; and it is the task of the reviewing court or tribunal to provide it, albeit via a process that remains different from that of an appeal. R (on the application of Isaac Kimondo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (relevant rules; AoS requirements) IJR [2014] UKUT 00565 (IAC) (1) In judicial review applications transferred by the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal, the applicable procedural regime is that contained in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The Civil Procedure Rules have no effect thereafter; although the procedural history may be significant, particularly as regards time limits. (2) The prohibition in rule 29(3) on a party who has not filed an acknowledgement of service from taking part in the application permission (without the Upper Tribunal’s permission) applies also to a party who has failed to provide a copy of the AoS to the applicant, as required by rule 29(2A). Employer's guidance right to work checks, 23 December 2014: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ber_2014_v4.pdf</noindex> The Home Office is weeding the nationality instructions and has removed some from Volume 2 Part 1 (Procedural section)

R (on the application of Jowanski Muwonge) v Secretary of State for the Home Department(consent orders: costs: guidance)IJR [2014] UKUT 00514(IAC) (i) There appears to be a practice, relatively entrenched, whereby an AOS which contains a concession, with or without an accompanying draft consent order, incorporates a claim for costs, liquidated or otherwise. In most cases, the claim for costs has no justification. (ii) There may be cases, likely to be small in number, where an AOS which embodies a concession on behalf of the Secretary of State, with or without an accompanying draft consent order, justifiably and reasonably incorporates a claim for costs. In such cases, good practice dictates that the AOS should state, briefly, the justification for such claim. (iii) Where a draft consent order is tabled, both parties should proactively take all necessary and appropriate steps designed to achieve consensual resolution within a period of (at most) three weeks. (iv) Where consensual resolution is not achieved within the timescale recommended above, this should operate as a bilateral incentive to redouble efforts to do so. (v) In every case possessing the factor of an unexecuted draft consent order, it is essential to provide the Upper Tribunal with each party’s explanation, brief and focussed, for non-execution. This explanation should be provided by both parties, in writing: (a) Within four weeks of the date of the AOS or, if different, the date of receipt of the draft consent order. ( Where a case is listed, not later than five clear working days in advance of the listing date. © In cases where there is any material alteration or evolution in the terms of the explanation, not later than two clear days in advance of the listing date. (vi) It is recognised that, exceptionally, there may be cases in which for good and sustainable reasons a consent order cannot be reasonably executed until a very late stage indeed, postdating the periods and landmarks noted above. However, the experience of the Upper Tribunal to date is that consent orders are very frequently not executed and presented to the Tribunal for approval until the last moment, frequently late on the day before the scheduled hearing and that no good reason is proffered for the parties’ failure to do so at an earlier stage. This practice is unacceptable. (vii) The practice whereby executed consent orders materialise during the period of 48 hours prior to the listing date is unsatisfactory and unacceptable in the great majority of cases. The Upper Tribunal recognises that there may be a small number of cases where, exceptionally, this is unavoidable. (viii) In matters of this kind, parties and their representatives are strongly encouraged to communicate electronically with the Tribunal and, further, to seek confirmation that important communications and/or attachments have been received. (ix) In determining issues of costs, Upper Tribunal Judges will take into account the extent to which the recommendations and exhortations tabulated above have been observed and will scrutinise closely every explanation and justification proffered for non-compliance.

Bhimani (Student: Switching Institution: Requirements) [2014] UKUT 00516 (IAC) Where a student chooses to study at another institution holding a different sponsor licence number from that of the institution where he/she was granted leave to remain to study, he/she is required to make a fresh application for leave to remain. Miah (interviewer’s comments: disclosure: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00515 (IAC) Conduct of pre-decision interviews (i) A decision that a marriage is a marriage of convenience for the purposes of regulation 2(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 is a matter of some moment. Fairness requires that the affected person must be alerted to the essential elements of the case against him. (ii) In addition, those involved must be alert to the question of whether, in an unusual or exceptional case, anything further is required in the interests of fairness. There may be difficult, borderline cases in which fairness will require identification of the third party. These do not admit of general guidance or resolution and will have to be addressed on a case by case basis, guided by the overarching requirement of fairness and balancing all interests in play. The making of the decision on the application (iii) The Secretary of State’s decision making process includes a process whereby comments, or opinions, of an interviewing officer are conveyed to the decision maker. In the generality of cases, this practice will not contaminate the fairness of the decision making process. The duty of the decision maker is to approach and consider all of the materials with an open mind and with circumspection. The due discharge of this duty, coupled with the statutory right of appeal, will provide the subject with adequate protection. Disclosure (iv) However, the document enshrining the interviewer’s comments – Form ICV.4605 – must be disclosed as a matter of course. An appellant’s right to a fair hearing dictates this course. If, exceptionally, some legitimate concern about disclosure, for example, the protection of a third party, should arise, this should be proactively brought to the attention of the Tribunal, for a ruling and directions. In this way the principle of independent judicial adjudication will provide adequate safeguards for the appellant. This will also enable mechanisms such as redaction, which in practice one would expect to arise with extreme rarity, to be considered. JO and Others (section 55 duty) Nigeria [Decision remade/ Appeal allowed / SSHD to re-make decision in line with judgement] (1) The duty imposed by section 55 of the Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the decision-maker to be properly informed of the position of a child affected by the discharge of an immigration etc function. Thus equipped, the decision maker must conduct a careful examination of all relevant information and factors. (2) Being adequately informed and conducting a scrupulous analysis are elementary prerequisites to the inter-related tasks of identifying the child's best interests and then balancing them with other material considerations. (3) The question whether the duties imposed by section 55 have been duly performed in any given case will invariably be an intensely fact sensitive and contextual one. In the real world of litigation, the tools available to the court or tribunal considering this question will frequently be confined to the application or submission made to Secretary of State and the ultimate letter of decision. Sultana and Others (rules: waiver/further enquiry; discretion) [2014] UKUT 00540 (IAC) (1) Paragraph [D] of Appendix FM-SE is an example, within the context of the requirement to supply specified evidence, of the increasing influence of discretionary powers of waiver and further enquiry in the Immigration Rules. (2) Where applicants wish to invoke any discretion of this kind, they should do so when making the relevant application, highlighting the specific provision of the Rules invoked and the grounds upon which the exercise of discretion is requested. (3) Where any request of this kind is made and refused, a brief explanation should be provided by the decision maker. (4) A refusal to exercise a discretionary power as described in (1) above may render an immigration decision not in accordance with the law, under section 84(1)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. (5) Powers of waiver are dispensing provisions, designed to ensure that applications suffering from certain minor defects or omissions can be readily remedied. (6) The hierarchical distinction between the Immigration Rules and Immigration Directorate Instructions (“IDIs”) must be observed at all times. (7) A failure to recognise, or give effect to, an IDI may render an immigration decision not in accordance with the law. R (on the application of Mohammed Alam Mamour) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2014] UKUT 00512(IAC) This case was a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to treat the Claimant’s representations as a fresh claim. The Claimant had been age disputed but had been found to be a minor by the Immigration Tribunal, who refused him asylum. The Secretary of State failed to apply her policy to grant discretionary leave to remain (DLR) to minors. The Applicant was ultimately removed to Afghanistan as a young adult and pursued his claim from there – he unsuccessfully sought an Order for his return. The Court held that the refusal to grant DLR was within the range of reasonable responses open to the Secretary of State and was thus not irrational. However when considering Article 8, the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to take due account of the fact that the failure to grant the Applicant DLR is a disadvantage of itself requiring consideration in the proportionality balancing exercise. The Secretary of State had also erred by making a misstatement of fact regarding the age dispute which allowed the Tribunal and High Court to proceed on a mistaken factual basis in permitting the applicant’s removal from the UK. Two years later, this did not require to be corrected by an Order for his return because it was not a foregone conclusion that he would succeed in establishing his fresh claim – the Secretary of State’s decision was quashed and must be remade. R (on the application of Khadija BA Fakih) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2014] UKUT 00513(IAC) The applicant challenged the imposition of a “no recourse to public funds” condition on her leave on grounds that it was was made pursuant to a ‘rule’ that was unlawful by reason of not having been laid before Parliament and breached public sector equality duties. The Secretary of State’s decision to impose the condition was quashed on the basis that it was pursuant to an unlawful policy.

Иммиграционный дайджест 12/14 Immigration Act implementation 20 October 2014 and Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules + Updated with Guidance: changes to transit visas, 28 November 2014 Updated with changes to marriage and civil preliminary notifications, Home Office, 25 November 2014 Updated 21 November 2014 with Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 3074 Financial Services and Markets Immigration. Updated 9 November with a link to the The Immigration Act 2014 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014 (SI 2014/2928) into effect 10 November. 1/ The general order. <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2874/contents/made</noindex> 2/ The English order (how tenancy agreements in England work with the scheme and modifications to the Act in light of comments at the panel). <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2873/contents/made</noindex> 3/ Main Code. <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ode-of-practice</noindex> 4/ Anti-disc Code. <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ode-of-practice</noindex> === Changes to marriage and civil preliminary notifications, Home Office, 24 November 2014 “The Government has announced changes to the process for giving notice of marriage or civil partnership to come into effect from Monday 2 March 2015. From this date, the notice period for all couples wishing to marry following civil preliminaries or form a civil partnership in England and Wales will be extended from 15 days to 28 days. The changes, which are part of the Immigration Act 2014, will ensure that the Home Office has more time to identify and investigate suspected sham marriages and civil partnerships. For couples involving a non-EEA (European Economic Area) national, where the Home Office suspects the couple are not genuine the notice period may be extended to 70 days to enable the Home Office to interview the couple and take further action as necessary. As well as the increase in the notice period registration officials have additional powers to share information to make sure appropriate action can be taken against couples suspected of being involved in a sham marriage. Couples seeking to get married in the Anglican Church where one or both is from outside the EEA will need to undertake civil preliminaries and give notice at a register office. Couples who give notice of a marriage or civil partnership before 2 March 2015 will not be affected by the changes. To find out further information about the changes please visit the following address: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partners...register-office</noindex> === Changes to marriage and civil preliminary notifications, Home Office, 24 November 2014 <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...il-partnerships</noindex> === Employer checking service form: check employee's right to work, UK Visas and Immigration, 24 November 2014 <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...s-right-to-work</noindex> === Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill 2014 - 15, 26 November 2014 New Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures; new provisions on temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom, designed for those with a right of abode in the UK (a category which of course includes all British citizens); new authority to carry schemes. === The targets of many of these measures are British citizens, but using the methods of immigration control. <noindex>http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-1...ndsecurity.html</noindex> === Immigration Directorate Instruction Family Migration: Chapter 8 Transitional Provisions, Family Members under Part 8 and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, Home Office, 26 November 2014 <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...vember_2014.pdf</noindex> === Systemic Obstacles to Children's Registration as British Citizens, Legal Research Report, Ealing Law Centre, 30 November 2014 <noindex>http://ealinglawcentre.org.uk.gridhosted.c...on-30-11-14.pdf</noindex> === Application for an Initial Grant of Leave (Switching) or an Extension of Leave and Biometric Residence Permit under Tier 1 (Investor) Main Applicant, UK Visas and Immigration, 1 December 2014 <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste..._Form_12-14.pdf</noindex> === Guidance: Chapter 1a: applications for fee waiver and refunds, UK Visas and Immigration, 3 December 2014 The policy withdrawn on 28th November has been published again as part of the interim arrangements, to which a separate link is provided. These were put in place following the judgment R (Carter) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2603 (Admin). <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ver-and-refunds</noindex> Interim Guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-for-applicants</noindex> === Policy paper: Immigration Rules archive: 6 November to 30 November 2014, UK Visas and Immigration, 3 December 2014 file:///C:/Users/Anton/Downloads/14.12.03-Policy-paper-Immigration-Rules-archive-6-November-to-30-November-2014.pdf === Sultana and Others (rules: waiver/further enquiry; discretion) [2014] UKUT 00540 (IAC) (1) Paragraph [D] of Appendix FM-SE is an example, within the context of the requirement to supply specified evidence, of the increasing influence ofdiscretionary powers of waiver and further enquiry in the Immigration Rules. (2) Where applicants wish to invoke any discretion of this kind, they should do so when making the relevant application, highlighting the specific provision of the Rules invoked and the grounds upon which the exercise of discretion is requested. (3) Where any request of this kind is made and refused, a brief explanation should be provided by the decision maker. (4) A refusal to exercise a discretionary power as described in (1) above may render an immigration decision not in accordance with the law, under section 84(1)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. (5) Powers of waiver are dispensing provisions, designed to ensure that applications suffering from certain minor defects or omissions can be readily remedied. (6) The hierarchical distinction between the Immigration Rules and Immigration Directorate Instructions (“IDIs”) must be observed at all times. (7) A failure to recognise, or give effect to, an IDI may render an immigration decision not in accordance with the law.

Miah (interviewer’s comments: disclosure: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00515 (IAC) Conduct of pre-decision interviews (i) A decision that a marriage is a marriage of convenience for the purposes of regulation 2(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 is a matter of some moment. Fairness requires that the affected person must be alerted to the essential elements of the case against him. (ii) In addition, those involved must be alert to the question of whether, in an unusual or exceptional case, anything further is required in the interests of fairness. There may be difficult, borderline cases in which fairness will require identification of the third party. These do not admit of general guidance or resolution and will have to be addressed on a case by case basis, guided by the overarching requirement of fairness and balancing all interests in play. The making of the decision on the application (iii) The Secretary of State’s decision making process includes a process whereby comments, or opinions, of an interviewing officer are conveyed to the decision maker. In the generality of cases, this practice will not contaminate the fairness of the decision making process. The duty of the decision maker is to approach and consider all of the materials with an open mind and with circumspection. The due discharge of this duty, coupled with the statutory right of appeal, will provide the subject with adequate protection. Disclosure (iv) However, the document enshrining the interviewer’s comments – Form ICV.4605 – must be disclosed as a matter of course. An appellant’s right to a fair hearing dictates this course. If, exceptionally, some legitimate concern about disclosure, for example, the protection of a third party, should arise, this should be proactively brought to the attention of the Tribunal, for a ruling and directions. In this way the principle of independent judicial adjudication will provide adequate safeguards for the appellant. This will also enable mechanisms such as redaction, which in practice one would expect to arise with extreme rarity, to be considered. Bhimani (Student: Switching Institution: Requirements) [2014] UKUT 00516 (IAC) Where a student chooses to study at another institution holding a different sponsor licence number from that of the institution where he/she was granted leave to remain to study, he/she is required to make a fresh application for leave to remain. Tarakhel v Switzerland, (application no. 29217/12) European Court of Human Rights, 4 November 2014 The case is a Dublin return from Switzerland to Italy of a family with five children who had lived in dreadful conditions in Italy after being Eurodaced. The Court held 1. Declares, unanimously, the complaints of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; 2. Holds, by fourteen votes to three, that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were to be returned to Italy without the Swiss authorities having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together; 3. Holds, unanimously, that the Court’s finding at point 2 above constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; 4. Holds, unanimously, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; ( that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2006 (SI 2014/2671), laid before parliament 17 October 2014. Amend the Immigration Euroropean Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003). The effect is that the “relevant period” during which a person is entitled to enjoy a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a jobseeker is 91 days. When combined with the initial three months of residence a jobseeker who entered the UK to seek employment will be able to enjoy a right to reside for six months. Thereafter compelling evidence must be provided that the person is continuing to seek employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged. In short, let us count the initial three months toward the six months as a jobseeker A person already resident can be a jobseeker for 91 days before being subject to the “compelling evidence” test. There are no changes to the six month period during which a person is entitled to retain worker status. There is transitional provision. Periods of time spent as a jobseeker after 31 December 2013, but prior to the coming into force of these regulations on 10 November 2014, are to be taken into account for the purposes of determining the relevant period. However, where such calculation of would result in a negative balance, it is to be taken to be zero. Such periods are also to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining whether a person can enjoy a repeat period of residence as a jobseeker. Latest UK BA documents: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/latest?depart...and-immigration</noindex> UK Visas and Immigration web traffic: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/performance/site-activit...and-immigration</noindex> New Tribunal Procedure Rules for the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): <noindex>http://www.ein.org.uk/news/new-tribunal-pr...amber-announced</noindex>

Visas and immigration operational guidance – Chapter 08: appendix FM family members (immigration directorate instructions) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...rent_Routes.pdf</noindex> Creating a CoS: guide for business sponsors: SMS guide 8a <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...__CoS_11_14.pdf</noindex> Judgment of the Court of Justice in the European Union (CJEU) in Tumer C 311/13, Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) 5 November 2014 The court holds that irregular migrants can invoke the protection of EU employment law. New Tier 1 Guidance: Tier 1 Entrepreneur: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ance_06_11.pdf</noindex> Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ance_06_11.pdf</noindex> Tier 1 (Investor): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ance_06_11.pdf</noindex> New Tier 2 Guidance: Tier 2: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...__CoS_11_14.pdf</noindex>

Обновился Guidance для 3-з категорий Tier 1 New Tier 1 Guidance: Tier 1 Entrepreneur: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...dance_06_11.pdf</noindex> Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...dance_06_11.pdf</noindex> Tier 1 (Investor): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...dance_06_11.pdf</noindex>

New application for UK visa as Tier 1 (Investor): form VAF9 appendix 2 <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...vaf9-appendix-2</noindex>