British Lawyer

Correspondence between ILPA and Trinity College London SELT re change in SELT Following the recent change to the list of approved English language test providers, ILPA wrote to UKVI and Trinity College London to seek clarification. We are yet to hear from UKVI but we will update members when we hear further. "New SELT providers will be going live over the coming months and customers should keep referring to the list for any updates. On December 16th 2019, Trinity College London was delighted to announce that it had again been awarded a Home Office concession agreement that will enable it to expand current provision of UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) approved Secure English Language Tests (SELTs) in the UK. For more information please see our website. The date that we start in the new concession is to be confirmed however our tests continue to be approved for UKVI applications. Please see the current list of approved test centres from 10th March 2020 here. This shows Trinity College London SELT centres are approved until July 2020. These are the current transitional arrangements in place which will be updated in due course as SELT providers (including Trinity), transition into a new UKVI Secure English Language Testing service."

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня еще двое детей клиентки Legal Centre с Украины смогут приехать к своей маме на ПМЖ в Великобританию. Legal Centre помогал клиентке на всех этапах ее иммиграционного пути в Великобританию: - Предварительная консультация: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html - Общее сопровождение заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Была проведена тщательная подготовка документов клиентов по категории "Единоличная ответственность (Sole Responsibility). См. https://legalcentre.org/Edinolichnaya-Otvetstvennost.html Как результат - заявление детей клиентки рассмотрели быстро. Я помог этим клиентам, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на предварительную телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

Это благодаря моим усилиям Home Office убрал "ерунду" и сейчас должны заменить на правильный документ, как я понимаю.

Оригинал отправляется обычно.

Снова увеличивают т.н. NHS Surcharge (IHS). The Immigration Health Surcharge is to increase from £400 to £624 in October 2020, the government has announced. The rise was confirmed during the Budget, which Chancellor Rishi Sunak presented to Parliament today. An accompanying policy costings document states: "This measure increases the Immigration Health Surcharge from the current level of £400 per year to £624 per year for each surcharge liable non-EEA temporary migrant (including dependants). The measure also increases the discounted rate for students, their dependents and those on the Youth Mobility Scheme from £300 to £470. The surcharge will also be set at £470 for all children under the age of 18. This will be implemented in October 2020 and expanded to include future EEA temporary migrants at the increased rate from January 2021." The Conservatives had promised to increase the surcharge to this level during the 2019 general election campaign, so it is not news in that sense, but the timing of the increase was not previously known. Migrants already pay for the NHS through their taxes, so what the surcharge really represents is a tax on UK visas. It is levied in addition to headline visa application fees. These do not appear to be rising in 2020/21 — but the health surcharge hike will push up the total cost of many visas anyway.

11 March 2020 - Part 2 – 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) >>> Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) rising to £624 in October 2020: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2020-documents The Immigration Health Surcharge is to increase from £400 to £624 in October 2020, the government has announced. The rise was confirmed during the Budget, which Chancellor Rishi Sunak presented to Parliament today. An accompanying policy costings document states: "This measure increases the Immigration Health Surcharge from the current level of £400 per year to £624 per year for each surcharge liable non-EEA temporary migrant (including dependants). The measure also increases the discounted rate for students, their dependents and those on the Youth Mobility Scheme from £300 to £470. The surcharge will also be set at £470 for all children under the age of 18. This will be implemented in October 2020 and expanded to include future EEA temporary migrants at the increased rate from January 2021." The Conservatives had promised to increase the surcharge to this level during the 2019 general election campaign, so it is not news in that sense, but the timing of the increase was not previously known. Migrants already pay for the NHS through their taxes, so what the surcharge really represents is a tax on UK visas. It is levied in addition to headline visa application fees. These do not appear to be rising in 2020/21 — but the health surcharge hike will push up the total cost of many visas anyway.

Сейчас несколько человек провели консультацию. Практически у всех были "критические ошибки" в документах/понимании ситуации/советов "ОБС". Этим форумчанам я смогу помочь. Жаль, что не все читают форум или обращаются за первичной консультацией.

From the UK BA: “Transtional arrangements: We are currently transitioning from the existing list of test centres shown in this document to those shown in a separate document on this website (NB They apparently refer to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-applying-for-uk-visa-approved-english-language-tests) You will be able to take a test at one of the IELTS SELT Consortium test centres until 7 April 2020. You will be able to book a test at one of the Trinity College London test centres until 7 July 2020.”

11 March 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) >>> Finally, the Home Office abandons “centre of life” test in Surinder Singh cases: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-movement-rights-family-members-of-british-citizens The Home Office has finally updated its guidance on Surinder Singh cases to remove all reference to a “centre of life” test. This follows the case of ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC) in which the Upper Tribunal found that the test was made-up nonsense and incompatible with EU law. Surinder Singh is an immigration route that allows British citizens who have moved to another EU country to return with non-European family members, bypassing the strict rules on UK family visas that apply to people who have not exercised free movement rights. The Home Office has always hated what it sees as a backdoor, and from 2014 demanded proof that Brits trying to avail of Surinder Singh had moved the centre of their life to the EU country in question. That this was clearly incompatible with the EU law on the subject did not bother officials. With the Upper Tribunal finally saying so explicitly, the Home Office has bowed to reality and stripped the centre of life test from its decision-making manual. The document now states: "Any previous references to a ‘centre of life’ requirement are no longer relevant following the determination in the case of ZA (Afghanistan) (UKUT 281 2019)." The precise legal status of the Surinder Singh route now that the UK is no longer formally a member of the European Union is complicated, to say the least. But for the time being it remains open and can be applied for until the 31st December 2020.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня еще одна клиентка Legal Centre из России получила ПМЖ (ILR - Indefinite Leave to Remain; заявление SET(M)) как жена британского гражданина. Legal Centre помогал этой клиентке на всех этапах ее иммиграционного пути в Великобританию: - Предварительная консультация: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html - Продление визы супруги британского гражданина: https://legalcentre.org/Suprugi-Spouses.html - Получение ПМЖ (ILR): https://legalcentre.org/PMZh-Settlement-ILR.html Работа на всех этапах проходила по принципу полного сопровождения ее заявления. Клиентка всегда выбирала ускоренное (24-hour Super Premium Service) рассмотрение заявления в Home Office: https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html Я помог ей и могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на предварительную телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

Я поднял на ноги "всех и вся": ILPA, JCWI, FreeMovement. Жду формальных ответов. Буду держать в курсе событий.

Почти страшная история - Trinity College English Language Tests are no longer listed in the list of acceptable provider by the Home OfficeEnglish Language Test are no longer listed in the list of acceptable provider by the Home Office Собственно говоря, копия мего письма сегодня в ILPA: URGENT ! I have noted that the Trinity College London English language tests (ALL OF THEM) have been deleted from the most recent UK BA (09-03-2020) Approved secure English language test centres list: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869997/Approved_Secure_English_Language_Test_Centres_9.3.20.pdf So if you look into the list the only IELTS tests are currently accepted. How nice ! Such a big change overnight without any prior announcement ? Most of my clients are using that test nowadays ! Google search gave no results, too. Fear not ! I called the Trinity College London myself and a bit tired voice of the person at their end confirmed that: – they know about the 09-03-2020 omission of the Trinity College from the List – their tests are still accepted – the Home Office has been notified – the correction of the list is expected ASAP P.S. Most of the Legal Centre's clients have been taking and passing the Trinity College London tests Осталось дождаться изменений на сайте Home Office чтобы "спать спокойно".

10 March 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) >>> Indefinite leave to remain: calculating continuous period in UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/indefinite-leave-to-remain-calculating-continuous-period-in-uk Immigration staff guidance on calculating the 5 year continuous period in the UK requirement for an applicant. This version: • adds the Global Talent category to the list of immigration categories covered by this instruction • adds an exemption for Global Talent and Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) applicants in certain sectors who have had absences linked to their endorsement (such as conducting research overseas) • adds minor clarifications and corrections It replaces the Indefinite leave to remain: calculating continuous period in UK modernised guidance version 19.0 which has been withdrawn and archived. >>> Knowledge of language and life in the UK - Updated Guidance Version 24.0 Update: Clarified the list of people who do not need to meet the KoLL requirement. "The following categories of people do not need to meet the KoLL requirement: - victims of domestic violence - foreign and Commonwealth citizens on discharge from HM Forces (including Gurkhas) - highly skilled migrants applying under the terms of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) judicial review, and their dependants - bereaved spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners or - same-sex partners of people present and settled in the UK parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives of people present and settled in the UK, applying under paragraph 317 of the Immigration Rules, even if they are aged between 18 and 64 - adult dependent relatives, under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, even if they are aged between 18 and 64 retired persons of independent means - people applying for ILR as a refugee - people applying for ILR on the basis of discretionary leave " >>> English language requirements: skilled workers: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiGsICBwY_oAhVE5eAKHVEWDBEQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F870839%2Fenglish-language-v17.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3jDZBtDhx41wWmglYqv7k3 Update: Changes made to reflect the introduction of the Global Talent category into the Immigration Rules on 20 February. >>> Guidance for dependants of UK visa applicants (Tiers 1, 2, 4, 5 and Appendix W): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-dependants-of-uk-visa-applicants-tiers-1-2-4-5 Full guidance on the policy for applications by the family of people who have UK visas under the points-based system (PBS dependants) and Appendix W workers. >>> EU citizens are protected by EU law, High Court reminds government: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/437.html The High Court has held that the Home Office trying to apply its “deport first, appeal later” policy to EU citizens is incompatible with European Union law. The case is Hafeez v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2020] EWHC 437 (Admin) In Hafeez, the High Court considered what test applies when deciding whether to certify a case. Are EU citizens protected by EU law (as one would expect) or does domestic law (in this case, the Human Right Act) apply? This will be a helpful decision for EU citizens facing deportation from the UK and those representing them. It makes it clear that EU law applies to all stages of the deportation process. The Home Office can still certify cases and deport EU nationals before their appeals have concluded. However it needs to apply EU law when doing so. At the moment the test for certification is whether the person would face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed before the appeal is concluded. This test is based on the Human Rights Act and the person’s right to private and family life. Now the test for certification is more stringent. The Home Office must demonstrate that: "The personal conduct of the individual concerned represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society; Removal prior to conclusion of the appeal process is necessary on grounds of public policy, public security or public health; The objective to be achieved by removing the person before conclusion of their appeal cannot be achieved by a less onerous method; and The burden imposed by removal is not disproportionate to the benefits secured." The decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Considerations of general prevention are not permitted. Previous criminal convictions cannot, in themselves, constitute grounds for removal. This is a much more difficult test for the Home Office to meet. As a result, use of the “deport first, appeal later” power is likely to be used less frequently, and only in the most serious cases. >>> Guidance on examining identity documents: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recognising-fraudulent-identity-documents A guide on how to detect basic forgeries in identity documents.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня еще одна клиентка Legal Centre из России получила ПМЖ (ILR - Indefinite Leave to Remain; заявление SET(M)) как жена британского гражданина. Legal Centre помогал этой клиентке на следующих этапах ее иммиграционного пути в Великобританию: - Предварительная консультация: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html - Получение ПМЖ (ILR): https://legalcentre.org/PMZh-Settlement-ILR.html Работа проходила по принципу полного сопровождения ее заявления. Клиентка всегда выбирала ускоренное (24-hour Super Premium Service) рассмотрение заявления в Home Office: https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html Сейчас эта клиентка снова обратилась в Legal Centre. В этот раз мы будем получать ей британского гражданство. Я помог ей и могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на предварительную телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

В районе £10 000.

09 March 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) >>> Government publishes Immigration Bill 2.0: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-immigration-bill-to-end-free-movement-introduced-to-parliament?utm_source=382549e7-d2ed-4f12-b579-c28d4e18e665&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate An Immigration Bill has been introduced to the House of recently. It is expected to be similar to the one introduced in 2018 by then Home Secretary Sajid Javid, which ultimately lapsed when the Johnson government took power and secured a general election. The revived bill was foreshadowed in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, published after the Conservative victory in that election. The main elements are an end to free movement of EU citizens — which would otherwise be preserved in UK law despite Brexit — and a legislative guarantee of the special rights of Irish citizens. The draft law is said to “pave the way” for a points based immigration system, although the press release also refers to that being implemented through changes to the Immigration Rules later in the year. The 2020 version of the bill has been presented not by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, but by her deputy, Kevin Foster. Patel may be a little busy trying to salvage her political career, but has tweeted in support of the bill. The Home Office has been engaged in some light rebranding ahead of the bill’s publication. Foster is no longer merely the Immigration Minister, but the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration. Tier 2 (General) is now the General work visa (Tier 2): https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general, while Tier 4 (General) is now the General student visa (Tier 4): https://www.gov.uk/tier-4-general-visa. >>> Sudanese man unlawfully refused indefinite leave to remain after domestic abuse: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/326.html The case of R (Suliman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 326 (Admin) is a welcome reminder to the Home Office that there may be an array of reasons for a victim of domestic abuse not to tell the authorities. Mr Suliman is a Sudanese citizen who applied for indefinite leave to remain on the basis that he had been a victim of domestic abuse. The Home Office refused his application. Quoting the High Court: "After summarising some of the evidence which [Mr Suliman] had submitted the decision maker said, ‘… nowhere in these notes is any explanation given for these injuries in that your wife caused them.’. In effect, therefore, the Secretary of State whilst accepting that the Claimant had attended hospital with injuries that are consistent with his account, refused to conclude that the Claimant’s wife caused them. [paragraph 20]" The High Court found, however, that the refusal was unlawful because it failed to address the reasons given by Mr Suliman as to why he didn’t report the abuse: "the Secretary of State did not address or deal with the reasons explained by the Claimant why he was reluctant to tell the police or the medical authorities. These were, variously, his own sense of shame; ‘cowardness’; his residual love for his wife despite her behaviour; and his fear of losing her or getting her into trouble. If the Secretary of State was going to deal with matters fairly then this evidence needed to be confronted and a conclusion reached. [25] " It is also gratifying to see that Mr Justice Julian Knowles found those explanations plausible: "I am bound to say that these explanations all strike me as being inherently plausible and the fairly typical response of an abused partner in a relationship. They provide at least an equally convincing explanation for why the Claimant said nothing at the time as the one reached by the Secretary of State, ie, that he had not been assaulted by his wife. Fairness required the Secretary of State to address it.[25]" The judge therefore quashed the refusal of indefinite leave to remain. Interestingly, the Home Office also said that Mr Suliman technically didn’t qualify for the domestic abuse settlement scheme within the Immigration Rules because he had never been granted leave as a partner under Appendix FM of the Rules. Instead, his leave to remain was under Part 8 of the Immigration Rules, which preceded Appendix FM. The Home Office did, however, go on to accept that Mr Suliman had been granted leave as a partner and considered his application outside the Rules. Any other conclusion would have gone against the spirit of the immigration system’s approach to domestic abuse, which is to enable migrants in the UK to escape an abusive relationship without endangering their immigration status. >>> Removing Afghan Sikhs does not breach their Article 3 rights: A.S.N. and Others v The Netherlands (application nos. 68377/17 and 530/18) The Sikh community in Afghanistan used to be a sizeable religious minority within that country, but the effect of persecution over the past 30 years has meant that 99% have now emigrated. The United Nations and other international observers estimate that there may be only 1,000 Sikhs left in Afghanistan, primarily in Kabul. Nevertheless, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there is no general risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment for Afghan Sikhs, and that there would be no breach of Article 3 of the human rights convention by removing a Sikh family to Afghanistan. The case is A.S.N. and Others v The Netherlands (application nos. 68377/17 and 530/18).

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня еще одна клиентка Legal Centre из России получила ПМЖ (ILR - Indefinite Leave to Remain; заявление SET(M)) как жена британского гражданина. Legal Centre помогал этой клиентке на всех этапах ее иммиграционного пути в Великобританию: - Предварительная консультация: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html - Продление визы супруги британского гражданина: https://legalcentre.org/Suprugi-Spouses.html - Получение ПМЖ (ILR): https://legalcentre.org/PMZh-Settlement-ILR.html Работа на всех этапах проходила по принципу полного сопровождения его заявления. Клиентка всегда выбирала ускоренное (24-hour Super Premium Service) рассмотрение заявления в Home Office: https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html Я помог ей и могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на предварительную телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

Привет, Игорь, Тут случилась классическая ситуация, на основании которой на нашем сайте пришлось даже сделать отдельные секции: Альтернативное мнение Единоличная ответственность Клиенты не были виноваты. Просто не повезло. Обратились к настоящим адвокатам (UK Solicitors) по рекламе. Поверили, сделали все, как им сказали. И получили отказ. Что произошло. Украина. Женщина с ребенком от первого брака вышла замуж за британца. Отец ребенка от первого брака жив и живет в той же стране, где проживает женщина и ребенок. На момент подачи заявления женщина уже бела беременна. Ожидали быстрое получение визы, т.к. подавали по т.н. ускоренному пути (Priority Application). Не знаю, чем думали те solicitors, кто представлял эту женщину в первый раз, но ей реально посоветовали: > Использовать ее инязовский диплом и тем самым доказать знание английского языка (такое возможно в очень ограниченных случаях и в основном, в Европе и Индии. NARIC не просто должен подтвердить, что инъязовский диплом соответствует уровня бакалавра, но и то, что ВСЕ предметы преподавались на английском языке То есть 2 ошибки в одном совете было сделано. Формулировка отказа: не выполнили требования по знанию английского языка > Папа ребенка написал разрешение (в буквальном смысле - "Я разрешаю выезд") о выезде ребенка на ПМЖ. Это катастрофа ! Ни в коем случае нельзя в таких письмах употреблять слова "разрешаю", "мой ребенок" (со стороны отца), "наш ребенок" и т.п. Разумеется, сразу был оформлен второй пункт отказа: Не выполнено требование по единоличной ответственности. Ситуацию с отказом и беременностью далее усложнило то, что у спонсора устарели финансовые документы. Пришлось работать много. Созванивались с клиентов и ее мужем ежедневно и по несколько раз. Особо сложным оказался аспект перевода финансовых активов из не принимаемой формы в принимаемую. Чуть не свели бухгалтеров с ума ! Заявление рассмотрели в этот раз быстрее, чем за 6 недель. Так же уже заранее было известно, что подготовленное в этот раз заявление будет положительно рассмотрено, т.к. в процессе рассмотрения Home Office попросил клиентку заплатить NHS Surcharge за ее сына. NB За детей берут оплату NHS Surcharge только в том случае, когда принимается решение выдать визы. В первый раз такого, увы, с той клиенткой не случилось. Теперь клиентка успеет приехать в Великобританию, чтобы родить там второго ребенка. Да, в этот раз клиентка сразу сдала такой тест, чтобы больше не пересдавать тест по английскому языку ни на продление, ни на ПМЖ (ILR), ни на гражданство (экономия минимум £450). Если есть вопросы, задавайте.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня еще одна клиентка и ее сын из Украины получили визы для приезда в Великобританию на ПМЖ. Заявление было не простое. До этого клиентка работала с другим адвокатом и получила отказ по нескольким пунктам: English language и Sole Responsibility. Legal Centre помогал этой клиентке на следующих этапах ее иммиграционного пути в Великобританию: - Предварительная консультация: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html - Получение визы жены и визы (Appendix FM Partner) и визы для ее сына (Appendix Partner Dependent - Sole Responsibility) Работа на всех этапах проходила по принципу полного сопровождения его заявления. Клиентка выбрала ускоренное рассмотрение заявления в Home Office: https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html Я помог ей и могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на предварительную телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

Приветствую. Он только появляется когда подается анкета. Но у меня есть, т.к. подаю такие заявления почти каждый день. Пришлите email на info гав legalcentre.org

04 March 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) >>> Judicial review challenge to restricted leave policy fails: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/414.html The Upper Tribunal has dismissed a judicial review of the restricted leave policy. This policy governs the grant of leave to remain in the UK to people who the Home Office wishes to remove but cannot because it would breach the European Convention on Human Rights. The restricted leave policy states that indefinite leave to remain will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, even after long periods of residence in the UK. Instead, it requires officials to grant short periods of leave to remain with highly restrictive conditions. The intention of the policy is to prevent serious foreign national criminals, like convicted terrorists, from integrating into UK society while they await removal. While that might sound like a reasonable idea, in practice it means that many people whose undesirable conduct may have taken place decades ago are stuck in limbo. The official headnote "(i) A decision of the Secretary of State not to grant indefinite leave to remain to a person subject to the restricted leave policy (“the RL policy”) does not normally engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Article 8 may be engaged by a decision to refuse to grant indefinite leave to remain where, for example, the poor state of an individual’s mental and physical health is such that regular, repeated grants of restricted leave are capable of having a distinct and acute impact on the health of the individual concerned. (ii) Once Article 8 is engaged by a decision to refuse indefinite leave to remain under the RL policy, the import of Article 8 will be inherently fact-specific, and must be considered in light of the criteria set out in MS (India) and MT (Tunisia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1190. The views of the Secretary of State attract weight, given her institutional competence on matters relating to the public interest and the United Kingdom’s reputation as a guardian of the international rule of law. (iii) To obtain indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules on the basis of long (partially unlawful) residence in cases involving no suitability concerns, paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii), taken with paragraph 276DE, requires a total of 30 years’ residence. A person who satisfies paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii) following 20 years’ residence is merely entitled to 30 months’ limited leave to remain on the ten year route to settlement. (iv) Paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 disapplies the prohibition against disability discrimination contained in section 29 of the Act in relation to a decision to grant restricted leave that is taken in connection with a decision to refuse an application for a more beneficial category of leave in the circumstances set out in paragraph 16(3). (v) To the extent that paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 disapplies the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of disability, there is a corresponding modification to the public sector equality duty imposed on the Secretary of State by section 149 of the Act."

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня еще один клиент Legal Centre из России получил ПМЖ (ILR - Indefinite Leave to Remain; заявление SET(M)) как муж британской гражданки. Legal Centre помогал этому клиенту на всех этапах его иммиграционного пути в Великобританию: - Предварительная консультация: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html - Продление визы супруга британской гражданки: https://legalcentre.org/Suprugi-Spouses.html - Получение ПМЖ (ILR): https://legalcentre.org/PMZh-Settlement-ILR.html Работа на всех этапах проходила по принципу полного сопровождения его заявления. Клиент всегда выбирал ускоренное (24-hour Super Premium Service) рассмотрение заявления в Home Office: https://legalcentre.org/viza-za-1-den.html Сейчас клиент ожидает получение BRP ILR и будет сразу подавать заявление на получение британского гражданства. Я помог ему и могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на предварительную телефонную/online консультацию со мной, Антоном Ковалем, 24 часа в сутки: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

03 March 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) >>> Migrant victim of domestic abuse successfully campaigns for change to student loan rules: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/276.html In OA v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 276 (Admin), the High Court has ruled that the student loan regulations unlawfully discriminated against migrant victims of domestic violence and abuse. The rules required three years’ lawful residence in the UK to qualify for a student loan but failed to take account the possibility that domestic abuse victims would be less likely to have this because of an abusive partner stopping them from sorting out their immigration status. Since women are more likely to suffer from domestic abuse, the three-year lawful residence rule discriminated against women and was therefore in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. Prior to the case being heard, and in response to OA’s lobbying, the government changed the regulations. The rules now take account of victims of domestic violence in deciding eligibility for student loans. But, perplexingly, the government continued to defend its decision to refuse the loan in this case. Fortunately, Mr Justice Nicol stepped in. OA will be able to continue her studies without waiting for the new regulations to come into force. OA is a Nigerian citizen who has lived in the United Kingdom since 2011. She obtained indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic abuse and was accepted onto a Biomedical Science course at university. But the Student Loan Company refused to give her a loan because she did not have three years’ lawful residence. Without the loan, OA would have had to give up on her degree. The break in lawful residence occurred during a period in which OA’s controlling partner had all her residence documents, including her passport. This is not an unusual scenario: as she told the High Court, “one of the forms that domestic abuse can take is the control of travel documentation, meaning that abused spouses (predominantly women) are liable to have gaps in their leave to remain in the UK”. OA challenged the decision, arguing that the three-year lawful residence rule indirectly discriminated against women. Evidence from the Home Office showed that the vast majority of those granted indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse are women. Women are therefore much more likely than men to be denied access to university education as a result of the rule. Mr Justice Nicol identified this result as discriminatory, rejecting the usual government defence that the discrimination was justified on the grounds of cost and administrative convenience. Interestingly, he also dismissed the argument that the relatively quick access to indefinite leave to remain available for victims of domestic violence could compensate for the discriminatory effect of the three-year rule: "The relative advantage of speedier access to ILR did not eliminate the disadvantage of the discriminatory requirement of having 3 years ordinary and lawful residence. In conclusion, I find that the Defendant has failed to justify the discrimination against the Claimant. It follows that there has been a breach of the Claimant’s rights under Article 14 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] when read with [Article 2 of the First Protocol]." The ramifications of the judgment itself are likely to be small because OA had already convinced the government to change its policy, but the decision is still a pleasing example of the High Court conducting a robust review of indirect discrimination. >>> Immigration bail policy updated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869352/Immigration-bail-v5.0ext.pdf The Home Office has updated its policy guidance on immigration bail, with a couple of changes to note. First, asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights will no longer automatically be subject to study restrictions. Second, the Home Office will now have five working days to decide whether someone who is not detained should be granted bail accommodation under Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016. For certain groups, such as homeless people or pregnant women, officials will make “reasonable efforts” to ensure a decision within two working days. Accommodation delays are still a big issue. Lengthy delays responding to accommodation requests, often after bail has been granted “in principle” by an immigration judge, has kept hundreds in detention for prolonged periods. While time limits for considering accommodation requests are a welcome change, the Home Office may be missing the point by focusing solely on non-detained people. There’s no reason why these provisions couldn’t apply to those inside detention as well.

02 March 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) >>> Immigration Skills Charge updated Guidance: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjE4fiO0PvnAhVNRBoKHQVFDxgQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F867716%2Fimmigration-skills-charge-v2.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3LHNs5jSTJS6yon9qk2yOa >>> Free Movement Rights: direct family members of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals Guidance: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiXyObH0PvnAhUMdxoKHUtTA84QFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F867664%2Ffree-movement-rights-direct-family-members-of-EEA-nationals-v9.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3m8BetrzfCyPc6scIL-t1V >>> Free Movement Rights: retained rightsof residence Guidance: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjO0ubX0PvnAhUSLBoKHasmDiQQFjABegQIDBAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F778709%2Ffamily-members-of-EEA-nationals-who-have-retained-the-right-of-residence-v4.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1MOBV9e3Ls5euUfwCf8cC2

Очень общие вопросы. Зависит от многих факторов. Может быть и так, и по другому. Нужна конкретика. Если есть временные ресурсы - на форуме спрашивайте, возможно получите ответы. Если хотите за 1 раз все решить - я могу проконсультировать здесь: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html