British Lawyer

08 May 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> High Court rules against government on no recourse to public funds: https://www.project17.org.uk/policy/strategic-litigation/intervention-in-legal-challenge-to-the-nrpf-policy The High Court has ruled that the government must make it easier for migrants to access the welfare system if they are about to become destitute. In an oral ruling delivered yesterday, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Chamberlain found that Home Office policy on no recourse to public funds is in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A detailed judgment and order will follow, which will set out the steps the Home Office needs to take to comply with the judges’ ruling. The case concerns the default no recourse condition imposed on migrants on a ten-year route to settlement. According to the oral judgment, caseworkers will in future have to lift the condition when the person “is not currently destitute but will imminently become so without access to public funds. The court made clear that the Home Office will still be able to impose the no resource condition “in the normal run of cases". The no recourse to public funds issue has become particularly pressing during the coronavirus pandemic, which has seen many migrants thrown out of work and unable to get benefits. But the judges said they were not ordering any immediate change to Home Office policy. The court will decide on the exact terms of the order at a later date.

07 May 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> Lengthy absences from the UK can put EU pre-settled status at risk For most people, the EU Settlement Scheme has largely lived up to its government billing as generous and straightforward, but confusion over permitted absences is likely to cause some European residents trouble down the line. People with pre-settled status, in particular, need to be aware of the absence rules. If they are outside the UK for more than six months in any 12-month period during the five years it takes to qualify for full settled status, they will generally have to start the five years all over again. And if they return after 31 December 2020, they may lose the right to upgrade to settled status entirely. Absences and the EU Settlement Scheme The starting point is that EU citizens and their family members will qualify for settled status after completing “a continuous qualifying period of five years of residence” in the UK. Those living in the UK for less than five years qualify for pre-settled status instead, and can upgrade to settled status once they reach five years. A “continuous qualifying period” is defined in Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules (the legal source of the Settlement Scheme) as being a period of residence that began before 11pm on 31 December 2020 and which has not been broken by one of the following: - Absence(s) from the UK exceeding a total of six months in any 12-month period, subject to some exceptions discussed below - A prison sentence - A deportation, exclusion or removal decision or order (in very general terms) How to calculate absences Firstly, it’s worth noting that the six-month cap is not limited to a single lengthy period outside the UK. It also applies to multiple trips totalling six months together. Secondly, the rules refer to absence(s) during “any 12-month period”. In other words, the Home Office will not just be looking at travel during a calendar year. It instead considers a “rolling” period of 12 months, which “resets” with every trip. This means applicants who travel frequently will need to keep a very close eye on their travel. Thirdly, such absences are only relevant to the “qualifying period” relied upon. Once the five-year qualifying period is complete, an applicant will only lose the right to apply for settled status if they spend five years or more outside the UK (a so-called “supervening event”). The above seems clear. What is less straightforward is how exactly such absences are calculated. So when Appendix EU sets a six-month limit on absences, how many days is that? What constitutes a “month” is not defined anywhere in Appendix EU, the Immigration Rules overall or in the pre-Brexit provisions for EU citizens, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. But other kinds of application may provide a clue. For the purposes of long residence applications for indefinite leave to remain, Home Office guidance defines a month as “30 calendar days”. This means that six months equals 180 days (the same limit applied to indefinite leave applications in the Tier 2 (General) and Tier 1 (Investor) categories). This is of course slightly less than half a year, which would be 182.5 days exactly. It is advisable, therefoe, for anyone who’s not yet reached 180 days to play it safe and avoid exceeding that limit. But I can’t really imagine an application failing at 182 days, subject to any further clarification on this point. When counting days, remember that only a whole day’s absence from the UK will count. So if you leave the UK on 2 March and return on 3 March, this won’t count as an absence. If you return on 4 March instead, it would be one day’s absence only. Finally, it’s worth noting that at present there’s no need to actually list the exact dates of travel as part of a Settlement Scheme application. The applicant simply needs to self-certify they’ve spent no more than six months outside the UK in any 12-month period. This suggests a more relaxed approach to absences than the Home Office adopts in other types of settlement. That said, the Home Office will have a record of travel where eGates have been used at airports and where travel has been stamped in a passport, meaning that honesty is always the best policy. Exceptions to the six-month rule There is some allowance for periods longer than six months in very narrowly defined circumstances. These include periods of absence on compulsory military service, a Crown service posting (or as a partner or child accompanying such a person) or time “spent working in the UK marine area”. In addition, applicants are permitted “a single period of absence” that does not exceed 12 months and which is “for an important reason, such as pregnancy, childbirth, serious illness, study, vocational training or an overseas posting”. These are examples only. This means other situations may also qualify as an “important reason”: for example, caring for a terminally ill parent. What about frequent travel for the work-related reasons ? It is difficult to see how this falls within one of the permitted exceptions as it’s repeat travel rather than “a single period of absence”. There is simply no generic allowance for “compelling occupational reasons” or travel that is an “unavoidable consequence” of the applicant’s career (as permitted in naturalisation applications, for example). Evidence of the reasons for the absence will of course be required in all cases. This could take the form of hospital records, an employer’s letter or university confirmation of a study abroad requirement, for example. What happens if one has exceeded or is going to exceed the limit? Absence(s) of more than six months that don’t fall within one of the exceptions will break a person’s “continuous qualifying period”. This means that the person has to begin a new five-year continuous qualifying period from the date they return to the UK to get settled status. But, for the moment at least, it does not mean the applicant needs to leave the UK or that the person’s pre-settled status comes to an end. In fact, pre-settled status only lapses through two years of absence from the UK. This is according to the EU Settlement Scheme website, probably reflecting section 13(4)(a) of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000: "where the holder has stayed outside the United Kingdom for a continuous period of more than two years… any leave then remaining (where the leave is limited) shall thereupon lapse." But there are two very important caveats. First, a person who has broken their continuous residence period will still need to reapply for pre-settled status when they return to ensure that they can ultimately upgrade to settled status. That is because pre-settled status can’t be renewed or extended, so an interruption will leave the person short of the five years they need to qualify with no way of making up the time. The second important caveat is that the settled status clock cannot be restarted after 31 December 2020. That is because of how a “continuous qualifying period” is defined in Appendix EU: it has to begin before 11pm on that date. If someone with pre-settled status exceeds the permitted absences and returns to the UK after 31 December 2020, they will be unable to restart the settled status clock at all. Someone in this situation would have to rely on the exceptions discussed above to argue that their continuous qualifying period had not been interrupted by the lengthy absence. It is possible that Home Office caseworkers will be sympathetic to absences related to coronavirus, or that it will make a new general exception making allowances for the pandemic. It is understood that the department is considering something along these lines. But if no announcement is made, the rules as written suggest that pre-settled status holders who return to the UK later than the end of this year will be in trouble if they have been gone for more than six months. Possible sources of confusion The Settlement Scheme is awash with various time periods that applicants need to consider, so to sum up: - EU citizens and their family member qualify for settled status after a “continuous qualifying period” of five years’ UK residence - A “continuous qualifying period” is broken by absence(s) of more than six months in any rolling 12-month period (unless that absence falls within one of the above exceptions) - Pre-settled status lasts for five years max. If a holder of pre-settled status breaks their continuous residence but returns to the UK before 31 December 2020, they must apply for a new grant of pre-settled status to allow them to complete the “continuous qualifying period” of five years required for settled status - Pre-settled status is only lost through two years of absence from the UK, but this is a red herring, for the reasons explained above - The right to upgrade from pre-settled status to settled status is lost if the continuous qualifying period is broken and the person returns to the UK after 31 December 2020 - Once someone has already completed a “continuous qualifying period” of five years, they can spend up to five years outside the UK without losing the right to apply for settled status All in all, absences may not be fatal to a settlement application or a person’s right to stay in the UK long term, but they certainly need to be approached carefully with a full understanding of the risks involved.

06 May 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> You can carry on with an old-style EU law appeal even if granted settled status: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2020/124.html The abandonment of an ongoing appeal seems to be a hot topic for the Upper Tribunal recently, with the case of Ammari (EEA appeals – abandonment) [2020] UKUT 124 (IAC) following on the heels of MSU and Aziz. This time the facts concern an appeal against a refusal by the Home Office to issue a permanent residence card, based on a retained right of residence, and brought under the EEA Regulations (in this case the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016). After lodging the appeal the appellant, Mr Ammari applied for and was granted “settled status” under the EU Settlement Scheme, a form of indefinite leave to remain (ILR). Meantime the First-tier Tribunal, unaware of the grant of ILR, had considered and refused Mr Ammari’s appeal against the refusal to grant a residence card. Mr Ammari was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, where the abandonment issue reared its head. At the Upper Tribunal the Home Office conceded that the First-tier judge had erred in refusing the appeal, but that this was immaterial since the grant of ILR served to abandon the appeal. Not so, said the Upper Tribunal, based on two key aspects. No abandonment in EEA Regulations appeals Firstly, it noted that appeals concerning “EEA decisions” (such as the refusal of a residence card) were brought under the relevant EEA Regulations; primarily either the 2006 Regulations or the 2016 Regulations which replaced them, and not section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Secondly, that since the drastic culling of the permitted grounds of appeal brought about by the Immigration Act 2014 (albeit with a myriad of savings and transitional provisions), it was not possible to cite EU law rights in an appeal under section 82 of the 2002 Act. Prior to the 2014 Act changes, it was possible to appeal against an immigration decision, for example a decision to remove someone from the UK, but cite EU law rights in the grounds of appeal. In this way the appeal would be under the 2002 Act, but still invoke EU law rights. The tribunal confirms that in an EU law appeal under the 2002 Act, there were two separate mechanisms for the appeal becoming abandoned if leave to remain was granted during the appeal. One was under section 104 of the 2002 Act, while there were also separate provisions within the EEA Regulations for abandonment of a section 82 appeal if a resident document was issued under those regulations. Both of these mechanisms have now fallen away, because after the 2014 Act, the only way to assert EU law rights in an appellate process was through an appeal brought under the EEA Regulations. Neither the 2006 or 2016 Regulations contain a mechanism for an appeal brought under them to be statutorily abandoned if an appellant is granted leave to remain. Critically, whilst both sets of regulations contain a list of provisions within the 2002 Act that can be “read across” as if applying equally to appeals brought under the regulations, section 104 (on abandonment) is not one of them. The case of Munday (EEA decision: grounds of appeal) [2019] UKUT 91 (IAC) has more details on this legislative device. The upshot is that Mr Ammari getting ILR did not mean that his appeal against the earlier refusal was abandoned. The Upper Tribunal proceeded to decide the case in his favour. The official headnote i. Under the 2000 and 2006 EEA Regulations there was provision for appeals brought under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to be treated as abandoned where an appellant was issued with documentation confirming a right to reside in the United Kingdom under EU law. Following the changes to the 2002 Act brought about by the Immigration Act 2014 that abandonment provision was revoked and never replaced. ii. There has never been provision under any of the EEA Regulations for an appeal against an EEA decision brought under those Regulations to be treated as abandoned following a grant of leave to remain or the issuance of specified documentation confirming a right to reside in the United Kingdom under EU law. iii. It follows that a grant of leave to remain following an application under the EU Settlement Scheme does not result in an appeal against an EEA decision brought under the 2016 EEA Regulations being treated as abandoned. >>> New Home Office policy on Dublin III brings big changes for family reunification: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dublin-iii-regulation On 30 April 2020 the Home Office published an updated policy on the Dublin III Regulation which has some significant changes for family reunification cases. The new policy includes updates on Article 9, Article 13.2 (entry and/or stay), Article 17.2 (discretionary clauses), working with local authorities in response to a take charge request involving unaccompanied minors, and on timescales.

Понятно. Есть особенности. Нужно знать все детали. Я могу обсудить эти вопросы во время нашей консультации.

Приветствую. Нет таких требования на ILR. То, что Вы указали - это требование на гражданство (AN). Вы по какому заявлению спрашиваете - уточните.

Не всегда бывают приятные новости. Вот, клиент только что получил Email из Sopra Steria о том, что его (уже ранее перенесенный) biometric appointment (заявление AN, натурализация), снова откладывается. Я успел подать заявление этого клиента, взять ему слот на сдачу биометрики и загрузить его документы в марте. Но (еще в марте) буквально за 1 день до сдачи биометрики клиент получил Email из Sopra Steria о том, что его биометрический слот переносится на начало мая 2020. Учитывая, что Life in the UK тесты переносятся сейчас на конец июня 2020, похоже, что в мае 2020 биометрика (Sopra Steria) может не заработать. Вот такие "полярные" новости сегодня.

Не всегда бывают приятные новости. Вот, клиент только что получил Email из Sopra Steria о том, что его (уже ранее перенесенный) biometric appointment (заявление AN, натурализация), снова откладывается. Я успел подать заявление этого клиента, взять ему слот на сдачу биометрики и загрузить его документы в марте. Но (еще в марте) буквально за 1 день до сдачи биометрики клиент получил Email из Sopra Steria о том, что его биометрический слот переносится на начало мая 2020. Учитывая, что Life in the UK тесты переносятся сейчас на конец июня 2020, похоже, что в мае 2020 биометрика (Sopra Steria) может не заработать. Вот такие "полярные" новости сегодня.

Хорошие новости - Несмотря на COVID19 Home Office продолжает рассмотрение иммиграционных заявлений и высылку новых BRP клиентам. Получено сегодня, 1 Мая 2020:

Сегодня, 1 Мая 2020 года, приятно удивили коллеги из Home Office, прислав Email c уточнением, можно ли продолжать высылать в Legal Centre BRP клиентов во время COVID19. Данный Email был из отдела Home Office, который занимается рассмотрением заявления по категории FLR(M), то есть т.н. "визы партнеров/жен британцев". Во время COVID19 Legal Centre регулярно подавал и продолжает подавать заявления форумчан и не только по разным иммиграционным категориям, включая вышеуказанную категорию FLR(M), с учетом текущих (COVID19) требований Home Office. Как видно из Email, Home Office продолжает принимать и рассматривать заявления. Кстати, я сталкивался (пока - единичные случаи) случаи, когда Home Office принимал решения без сдачи биометрики и загрузки документов клиентов.

Уточниение по автомаическому продлению виз для "сотрудников NHS" Amendments to Home Office policy on automatic NHS extensions The Home Secretary wrote to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to set out that it was partially extending its policy on automatic NHS extensions to other types of staff. The press release states: "Frontline workers, including midwives, radiographers, social workers and pharmacists, with visas due to expire before 1 October 2020 will receive an automatic one-year extension. It will apply to those working both in the NHS and independent sector and include their family members. ...Any NHS workers who have paid for an unresolved application will be offered the option of a refund. The Home Secretary has also confirmed family members and dependants of healthcare workers who sadly pass away as result of contracting the virus will be offered immediate indefinite leave to remain."

Пожалуйста. Буду рад помочь Вам.

01 May 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> COVID19 & UK Immigration Update Amendments to Home Office policy on automatic NHS extensions The Home Secretary wrote to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to set out that it was partially extending its policy on automatic NHS extensions to other types of staff. The press release states: "Frontline workers, including midwives, radiographers, social workers and pharmacists, with visas due to expire before 1 October 2020 will receive an automatic one-year extension. It will apply to those working both in the NHS and independent sector and include their family members. ...Any NHS workers who have paid for an unresolved application will be offered the option of a refund. The Home Secretary has also confirmed family members and dependants of healthcare workers who sadly pass away as result of contracting the virus will be offered immediate indefinite leave to remain." >>> High Court blow for EU citizens with pre-settled status trying to claim Universal Credit: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/998.html The High Court has rejected an argument that the regulations making it difficult for Europeans with pre-settled status to access most public funds are discriminatory on the ground of nationality. The case is Fratila and Tanase v SSWP [2020] EWHC 998 (Admin). Mr Justice Swift found that although the Social Security (Income-related Benefits) (Updating and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 do not constitute direct discrimination, they do amount to indirect discrimination. But he held that this discrimination was justified, and thus not unlawful. >>> "Individuals with pre-settled status under the EUSS will be considered 'settled workers' following the end of the transition period.", Gabi Monk, Head of Euro and Settlement and EU Settled Status Customer Resolution Centre confirms

Грядут задержки в рассмотрении заявления по EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) 30 April 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> COVID19 update - EU Settlement Scheme Expect delays in decision-making. The Home Office minister Kevin Foster wrote to campaigners earlier saying that “applications to the EUSS continue to be processed, but during this challenging time they will take longer than usual to process”.

Пожалуйста. Буду рад помочь Вам.

Хорошие новости для тех, кто получил иммиграционную визу для въезда в UK (обычно на 30 дней), но не смог въехать по ней из-за COVID19 >>> If your 30 day visa to work, study or join family has expired and you could not travel into the UK due to COVID19: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-for-uk-visa-applicants-and-temporary-uk-residents?utm_source=1b9655f9-d25e-405b-b691-29aa736d7a48&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate#outside-uk If your 30 day visa to work, study or join family has expired If your 30 day visa to travel to the UK for work, study or to join family has expired, or is about to expire, you can request a replacement visa with revised validity dates free of charge until the end of this year. To make a request, contact the Coronavirus Immigration Help Centre (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-for-uk-visa-applicants-and-temporary-uk-residents?utm_source=1b9655f9-d25e-405b-b691-29aa736d7a48&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate#helpline). You’ll need to include your name, nationality, date of birth and your GWF reference number with ‘REPLACEMENT 30 DAY VISA’ in the subject line. If you’ve already contacted us about this, please let us know in your email. You will be contacted when our VACs reopen to arrange for a replacement visa to be endorsed in your passport. You will not be penalized for being unable to collect your BRP while coronavirus measures are in place. This process will be in place until the end of 2020. Note that this does not cover visit visas. UK visa centres abroad are closed so the replacement wwill not be issued until they reopen.

29 April 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> If your 30 day visa to work, study or join family has expired and you could not travel into the UK due to COVID19: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-for-uk-visa-applicants-and-temporary-uk-residents?utm_source=1b9655f9-d25e-405b-b691-29aa736d7a48&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate#outside-uk If your 30 day visa to work, study or join family has expired If your 30 day visa to travel to the UK for work, study or to join family has expired, or is about to expire, you can request a replacement visa with revised validity dates free of charge until the end of this year. To make a request, contact the Coronavirus Immigration Help Centre (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-for-uk-visa-applicants-and-temporary-uk-residents?utm_source=1b9655f9-d25e-405b-b691-29aa736d7a48&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate#helpline). You’ll need to include your name, nationality, date of birth and your GWF reference number with ‘REPLACEMENT 30 DAY VISA’ in the subject line. If you’ve already contacted us about this, please let us know in your email. You will be contacted when our VACs reopen to arrange for a replacement visa to be endorsed in your passport. You will not be penalized for being unable to collect your BRP while coronavirus measures are in place. This process will be in place until the end of 2020. Note that this does not cover visit visas. UK visa centres abroad are closed so the replacement wwill not be issued until they reopen. >>> Asylum seeker to be sent back to Italy under Dublin III rules despite being interviewed in the UK: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/967.html In R (Habte) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 967 (Admin), the High Court has decided that conducting a substantive asylum interview does not amount to assuming responsibility for the asylum claim under Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation. The situation arose because the Home Office, apparently accidentally, conducted a substantive asylum interview of Mr Habte while it was going through the Dublin III procedure to remove him to Italy. The interview lasted four hours and involved 126 questions. Mr Habte might understandably have got the impression that the UK authorities had decided to consider his asylum claim here rather than removing him to Italy. When directions were set to remove him to Italy, he challenged the decision by judicial review, arguing that the UK had assumed responsibility for his claim under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation.

28 April 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> Upper Tribunal reminds visitors not to try and stay in the UK permanently:https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2020/129.html What happens when you enter the UK as a visitor and then apply to remain here so that you can stay with your British family members BEFORE* the visitor visa expires ? What if plans change after entering the UK? What if, as the expiry of the visit visa approaches, a doctor advises against travel for medical reasons? What if there is a risk that the financial requirement for a spouse visa won’t be met and the person will not be able to return? What if the person has never lived in their country of nationality (where they would need to apply from), having been born and raised in another country? What if applying from abroad would be disruptive and not in the best interests of the applicant’s British child? Is it reasonable to expect that child to leave the UK? May be the Home Office will be sympathetic to a change of circumstances, some may think ? The answer is "NO!". In the recent case of Younas (section 117B(6)(b); Chikwamba; Zambrano) Pakistan [2020] UKUT 129 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal answers all of these questions, all in favour of the Home Office. The official headnote (1) An appellant in an Article 8 human rights appeal who argues that there is no public interest in removal because after leaving the UK he or she will be granted entry clearance must, in all cases, address the relevant considerations in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) including section 117B(1), which stipulates that “the maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest”. Reliance on Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40 does not obviate the need to do this. (2) Section 117B(6)(b) of the 2002 Act requires a court or tribunal to assume that the child in question will leave the UK: Secretary of State for the Home Department v AB (Jamaica) & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 661 and JG (s 117B(6): “reasonable to leave” UK) Turkey [2019] UKUT 72 (IAC). However, once that assumption has been made, the court or tribunal must move from the hypothetical to the real: paragraph 19 of KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53. The length of time a child is likely to be outside the UK is part of the real world factual circumstances in which a child will find herself and is relevant to deciding, for the purpose of section 117B(6)(b), whether it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. (3) The assessment of whether a child, as a result of being compelled to leave the territory of the European Union, will be a deprived of his or her genuine enjoyment of the rights conferred by Article 20 TFEU in accordance with Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (Case C-34/09) falls to be assessed by considering the actual facts (including how long a child is likely to be outside the territory of the Union), rather than theoretical possibilities. *It is really strange, how some of the UK Immigration Rules are created. Just imagine: had Ms Younas overstayed, and been able to access the exception in paragraph EX.1, she would have met the rules. But because she applied whilst in the UK as a visitor, her application was refused. Why do the Immigration Rules encourage overstaying? >>> Common Travel Area (CTA): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjKxP-DtIjpAhWR0eAKHfpvB2sQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F879600%2Fcommon-travel-area-v7.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3QIMuP7Ogfr9oTLhC14grd Changes made to reflect the new legislation under which Biometrics are collected in Isle of Man >>> Registration as a British citzien - children: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjP_duftIjpAhWQHRQKHWfPDxIQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F824429%2Fregistration-as-british-citizen-children-of-british-parents-v6.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KqnKrMmqPVU2_wSJlUAVq Added information about the fee waiver for a child born on or after July 2006 where the mother was married to someone other than the natural father.

Это скорее всего будет просто к а т а с т р о ф а - если речь идет о UK Immigration Law. Вы обязаны подать раньше заявление, чтобы попасть под действие Section 3C - автоматическое продление статуса во время рассмотрения. Потом можно досдать тесты и т.п., если не можете из-за короновируса. Я несколько раз давал ссылку на требования и информацию из Home Office в соответствующем треде о COVID19 - что делать если нужно подавать на продление, а тест и т.п. не сдан. С нашими (Legal Centre) клиентами - все решено на данном этапе. Заявления все поданы, у кого подходил срок. Дата подачи зафиксирована. И сколько бы не длился COVID19 - иммиграционный статус клиентов защищен Законом. Кто-то будет досдавать тест на продление, кто-то - на ILR. Остальные же ждут, пока снова откроется регистрация на биометрику, чтобы я взял им слоты на сдачу биометрики и потом смог бы загрузить копии документов через сайт Sopra Steria.

24 April 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> High Court to rule on release of immigration detainees at high risk from COVID-19: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/950.html In R (Samson Bello) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 950 (Admin), the High Court has refused to release a man at high risk of COVID-19 complications from immigration detention. Instead, Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered a rolled-up hearing to take place on 27 April 2020. At that hearing the judge will consider the important issue of whether underlying health conditions, or “comorbidities”, indicating a higher risk of developing complications from COVID-19 should be recognised as Level 3 evidence under the Adults at Risk policy. Once the Home Office accepts that a detainee has Level 3 evidence, it will only keep him or her in detention if removal will take place in the immediate future or there are significant public protection concerns. The resolution of this question will have huge implications for the use of detention during the coronavirus crisis. Chamberlain J’s preliminary view is as follows: "As to [Mr Bello’s] vulnerability to COVID-19, there is a real question of interpretation as to whether every person identified as vulnerable by reason of comorbidities ipso facto falls to be categorised as a level 3 risk. That turns on whether it can be said of such a person that continued detention would be “likely to cause harm”. I see some force in Mr Buley’s suggestion that the answer to that question is yes, but I do not think the answer is obvious. The word “likely” can mean different things in different contexts." The update may follow in due course.

Вчера участвовал в online конференции ILPA EEA Working Group. Из интересного для форума: - On-line заявления по EEA law продолжают рассматриваться (т.е. EU Settled Scheme/Pre-Settled Scheme), case-workers работают - Paper applications (Zambrano, Surinder Singh) - по словам главы EU отделения Home Office у них остался т.н. Skeleton Staff, поэтому здесь они работают как могут В то же время я лично обратил внимание на то, что заявления на гражданство так же продолжают рассматривать (отделы EU & Naturalization находиться в г. Ливерпуль в одном здании). Например, в эту среду, 22 апреля 2020 года я подал 2 заявления на гражданство клиентов Tier 1 Investor, мама (заявление AN) и ее сын (заявление MN1). И вот буквально через день уже получили т.н. Certificate of Application (CoA), что заявление клиентов рассматриваются.

- Уточнение по возможности автоматического продления виз для сотрудников NHS не только по категории Tier 2 (General) - Особенности получения убежища во время COVID19 >>> COVID19 and the new locations to claim asylum in the UK: http://legalcentre.org/files/COVID19_and_Asylym_Claiming_locations_UK.pdf Update on how and where to claim asylum in the UK during COVID19 >>> COVID19 and the UK Immigration Update (via ILPA): ILPA participated in a call with the Home Office. The key points from the call are: - The Home Office has confirmed that, notwithstanding the confusing message given by updates to UKVI webpages on Friday 17 April, the automatic extension of leave to remain for doctors, nurses or paramedics working in the NHS is not limited to those on Tier 2 visas and does extend to other categories of leave. The Home Office advised that anyone who is eligible for the extension get in touch with their HR department, as the Home Office is asking individual trusts to notify them of those eligible. Пожалуйста. Был рад помочь Вам.

23 April 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber) >>> Judge criticized for for adjourning case during cross-examination: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2020/127.html The Upper Tribunal has reprimanded an immigration judge for granting an adjournment during the cross-examination of an appellant. In WA (Role and duties of judge) Egypt [2020] UKUT 127 (IAC), the President and Vice President of the Upper Tribunal provide guidance on how tribunal judges should manage hearings: "During the course of taking evidence, a judge’s role has to be merely supervisory. In dealing with representatives, and in assessing their submissions, the judge is entitled to take a role as interventionist and active as he considers appropriate. But while evidence is being taken, he should limit himself to making sure that the evidence is given as well as may be. He should be alert to the witness’s welfare; he should check that there are no obvious problems with interpretation. He will ensure that there are no undue interventions from the other side, reminding representatives, if necessary, that they will have an opportunity in due course to ask their questions. … If there are any questions which are manifestly unfair, he might simply direct that they be not asked, or if already asked, not answered." This explanation of the judicial function was triggered by First-tier Tribunal judge Peter Hollingworth deciding to adjourn a hearing during the cross-examination of the appellant to allow the appellant to prepare a new witness statement dealing with the Presenting Officer’s questions. The circumstances in which the adjournment decision came to be made are unclear; the judge recorded that the appellant’s lawyer had applied for one, but this was denied by counsel before the Upper Tribunal. The Home Office argued that the adjournment “gave the claimant an opportunity to improve his case at a point where questions and cross-examination were getting difficult”. Having reviewed the case, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the adjournment was inappropriate and unnecessary. The Presenting Officer was simply asking the appellant to clarify an aspect of his account in the usual way. The tribunal also identified an error of law in the determination itself, and for that reason remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The official headnote 1. During the taking of evidence a judge’s role is merely supervisory. 2. If something happens during a hearing that disrupts the normal course of taking evidence it is essential that the judge records what happened and why; who said what; and what decision the judge made and on what basis.

- Уточнение по продлению виз для сотрудников NHS - Уточнение о продлении срока сохранения online анкет - Уточние по ситуации с просроченными 30-и дневными визами для въезда в UK >>> COVID19 and Immigration update Update from UKVI re 30-day entry vignettes - via ILPA From a senior UKVI official below on 30-day entry vignettes: “We are aware that due to the current circumstances a number of customers are in possession of a 30-day vignette which has now expired. Unfortunately they are not permitted to travel on this vignette, and we are not able to confirm what action should be taken at this time. However, please do be assured that we are working extremely hard on a solution which we will communicate as soon as possible. We are sorry a more definitive reply cannot be given at this time." Please note that this information does not appear to be widely known by the Coronavirus Immigration Team, which had previously indicated to a different member that 30-day vignettes are being automatically extended. This issue will be raised to ensure the correct information is being given out. Application forms held open for longer On Friday 17 April 2020, UKVI Visas and Citizenship Stakeholder Engagement Team emailed to say: "Access UK is now holding applications for an increased period of 240 days. This will ensure applications remain live and valid, supporting enrolment of biometric data once services have resumed." The UKVI has provided further clarification on this issue: "We can confirm that the in-country application form is deleted from Access UK after 240 days, but if it is fully completed, paid for and submitted it is not deleted from our caseworking systems. It is also possible for the customer to save a copy as a pdf for their records. If the closure of VACs/UKVCAS centres last for more than 240 days, in cases where the application has been lodged the customer will be advised when they can enrol their bios. If they do not enrol within the timescales advised before any rejection takes place we will send a reminder and given them a further period to enrol. To ensure that customers can book an appointment after 240 days, they must register for their UKVCAS account when they complete their on-line application so that their account is activated and so that Sopra Steria can contact them when the service resumes." Automatic visa extension for the NHS workers - clarification On Friday 17 April, the UKVI webpage for current UK residents was updated with the following note: "Added link to Tier 2 worker guidance to explain that some NHS workers and their families will get their visas automatically extended because of coronavirus." This appears to be a change in policy suggesting that only Tier 2 workers benefit from the automatic extension for NHS staff, which was not set out when the policy was announced. Приветствую, Если бы не было COVID19 или не было бы детей-британцев до 18 лет - ДА, тогда бы такое было возможно. НО СМ. НИЖЕ. Из-за COVID19 языковые центры закрыты. Это форс-мажорная ситуация. Никто не мог предугадать, никто не виноват. Только что клиент из Японии получил сообщение, что дата теста для его жены переносится на 27 ИЮНЯ 2020 года. Поэтому он уже раньше подал на ILR сам, т.к. сдал все тесты по моей рекомендации до закрытия тестовых центров, а по его жене - надеялся, что тестовые центры откроются 10 мая 2020 (предпоследняя дата переноса экзамена для его жены). Заявления все равно нужно подавать чтобы не стать нелегалом, чтобы не оборвать время на ILR и и.п. Мы сейчас подаем заявление клиентов, кто не сдал тесты по причине закрытия языковых тестов, и просим Home Office сделать deferal заявления до тех пор, пока клиент не сдаст тесты. Основание - UK BA COVID19 Policies, case-law и т.п. Непросто, но возможно. Я на связи, если нужна помощь.

А вот так выглядит письмо из Home Office с подтверждением того, что гостевая виза клиентки Legal Centre была продлена из-за COVID19. Теперь у той клиентки появилась возможность перейти с гостевой визы на визу жены британского гражданина без выезда их Великобритании.

А вот так выглядит письмо из Home Office с подтверждением того, что гостевая виза клиентки Legal Centre была продлена из-за COVID19. Теперь у той клиентки появилась возможность перейти с гостевой визы на визу жены британского гражданина без выезда их Великобритании.