British Lawyer

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня клиент из Румынии получил ВНЖ (Limited Leave to Remain) – EU Pre-Settled Status в Великобритании. Я работал с клиентом по принципу общего сопровождения его заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиент полагался на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

08 January 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) >>> Delays in child asylum decisions not the Home Office’s fault, High Court finds: The Home Office has successfully defended its processing of asylum claims by unaccompanied children despite chronic delays in decision-making. The case is R (MK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 3573 (Admin). The court decided that that: “In my judgment, the statistics and evidence show that real priority and significantly increasing resources have been, and are being, devoted to deciding UASC [unaccompanied asylum seeking children] cases. The Claimant seeks to analyse these figures in terms of percentages as against applications, but such a metric is in my judgment highly questionable. It depends upon the highly variable number of applications, which is outside the control of the Defendant.”

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © России получил ПМЖ/ILR. Я работал с клиентом по принципу общего сопровождения его заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиент полагался на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из Украины стала британской гражданкой. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения его заявления: https://www.legalcentre.org/index.php До этого я помог этой клиентке получить ПМЖ/ILR за 24 часа. Клиентка полагалась на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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.htm Антон Коваль Legal Centre +44(0)7791145923 (Mob/WhatsApp/Viber) +44(0)3300010342 (Office) www.legalcentre.org

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня клиентка из Украины получила ПМЖ/ILR как супруга британского гражданина. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения ее заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиентка полагалась на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Отличные новости. Я был рад помочь Вам !

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиента из Украины получила визу жены британского гражданина и сможет воссоединиться с ее мужем на православное Рождество. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения его заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиентка полагалась на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Приветствую, Я обычно загружаю одним файлом, так проще и удобнее. Тем более, и Sopra Steria сейчас это от Вас требует. Всегда в формате .pdf. Вы в каком формате загружали ? Ори просто хотят ПОЛНУЮ копию Вашего паспорта, ВСЕ страницы, в одном файле. Перевод внутреннего украинского паспорта не нужен. Его даже можно не загружать, в принципе. Хотя я рекомендую клиентам только загружать разворот внутреннего паспорта just in case.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередной клиент из Румынии получил EU Pre-Settled Status. Я работал с клиентом по принципу общего сопровождения его заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиент полагался на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила продление ее визы жены. Клиентка сначала попробовала подать заявление сама, и у нее возникли трудности с Home Offie. Клиентку и ее британского мужа даже вызвали на т.н. marriage interview в Home Office Liverpool. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения ее заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиентка полагалась на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиента из России получила визу жены и сможет встретить Новый Год с ее британским мужем. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения его заявления: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Клиентка полагалась на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

24 December 2019 – 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) >>> Burden of proof on internal relocation still on appellant says Upper Tribunal: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/392.html The Upper Tribunal has confirmed that it is for asylum seekers to disprove the possibility of safe and reasonable internal relocation if the Home Office identifies a potential safe haven. In MB (Internal relocation – burden of proof) Albania [2019] UKUT 392 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal reconsidered the earlier decision of AMM and others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG [2011] UKUT 445 (IAC) and concluded that it remains good law on this point. That is notwithstanding a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union which emphasizes the need for cooperation by both parties in collating evidence for asylum appeals.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередной клиент из Украины стал британским гражданином. Я работал с клиентом по принципу полного сопровождения его заявления: https://www.legalcentre.org/index.php Клиент полагался на более чем 35-и летний суммарный опыт адвокатов Legal Centre. Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Был рад помочь Вам. С Наступающим !

Отличные новости, поздравляю !

23 December 2019 – 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) >>> When voluntary return is not voluntary at all: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-198465"]} In recent years the United Kingdom government has resorted to indirect measures like the hostile environment to force people to leave the UK, alongside directly removing people. The government can then claim that the person left the UK voluntarily, and may have thought that there could be no liability for any breaches of the person’s human rights after they have returned to their country of origin. However, the Strasbourg court has now ruled that voluntary return must be a free and informed choice. It will not be free and informed for a failed asylum seeker who is placed under pressure to leave by the immigration system. NA v Finland (application no. 25244/18) was a case brought against the Finnish government by the daughter of a man who had claimed asylum in Finland. He was originally from Iraq and had fled after an assassination attempt against him. His asylum application was refused and although he initially challenged the decision, he decided in the face of plans to detain and remove him to accept a voluntary return package offered by the International Organisation for Migration. As part of the deal, he signed a waiver stating that the Finnish government could not be held liable or responsible for his return in any way. Shortly after the man returned to Iraq he was killed. His daughter brought the case alleging that Finland had breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Finnish government argued that the application was not admissible because the applicant’s father had voluntarily returned to Iraq and therefore the consequences of his return had nothing to do with Finland. The court rejected this argument: “In the light of the circumstances of the case, in particular the factual background of the applicant’s father’s flight from Iraq as acknowledged by the domestic authorities, the Court sees no reason to doubt that he would not have returned there under the scheme of “assisted voluntary return” had it not been for the enforceable removal order issued against him. Consequently, his departure was not “voluntary” in terms of his free choice.” Therefore, the application concerned acts within the jurisdiction of the Finnish government. The court then considered the supposed waiver of liability. It declined to consider whether it is possible in principle to waive one’s rights under Article 3 ECHR, but ruled that any waiver would have to be free and informed which was not the case here: “In the present case, the applicant’s father had to face the choice between either staying in Finland without any hope of obtaining a legal residence permit, being detained to facilitate his return by force, and handed a two year entry ban to the Schengen area, as well as attracting the attention of the Iraqi authorities upon return; or agreeing to leave Finland voluntarily and take the risk of continued ill-treatment upon return. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicant’s father did not have a genuinely free choice between these options, which renders his supposed waiver invalid. Since no waiver took place, his removal to Iraq must be considered as a forced return engaging the responsibility of the Finnish State.” Having found that the application was admissible, the court went on to rule that there was a breach of Article 3. The Finnish immigration authorities failed to consider properly the cumulative effect of the various dangers in Baghdad or give sufficiently careful consideration to the previous attacks against the applicant’s father. This is a very sad case and it is unfortunate that the Strasbourg court only became seized of the matter after the applicant’s father had returned to Iraq. But it is an important statement by the court that it will not tolerate attempts to use indirect removal measures against failed asylum seekers whose applications have not been considered with sufficient care and attention.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила ее вижу жены. Теперь она и ее британский муж встретят Новый год вместе ! Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения заявление: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

20 December 2019 – 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) >>> £1,000 child citizenship fee found unlawful: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/3536.html The High Court has ruled that charging a citizenship fee of over £1,000 to children is unlawful. The decision will be widely welcomed by campaigners who have long argued that the fee charged to register a child as British, which is set far above the administrative cost of processing applications, is “pricing children out of their rights”. The challenge succeeded only on the limited ground of failing to assess children’s best interests, meaning that the Home Office could maintain the current fees after taking that step, or perhaps introduce a limited scheme of fee waivers. But the claimants are trying to take the matter to the Supreme Court in order to get a more substantial verdict on the lawfulness of the fee. The case is R (The Project for the Registration of Children As British Citizens & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 3536 (Admin). Children charged £1,000 to exercise citizenship rights Many children born in the UK or living here from an early age do not actually have British citizenship, but can get it through a process called registration. Processing applications for registration costs the Home Office an estimated £372, but it charges applicants £1,012. Analysis carried out by Free Movement last year, and not disputed by the Home Office, found that the surplus on child registration fees amounted to almost £100 million between 2012 and 2017. Mr Justice Jay said the evidence before him showed that “for a substantial number of children a fee of £1,012 is simply unaffordable”. That includes the two children in whose name the case was taken, O and A. 12-year-old O was born in the UK and has never left the country, but is not a British citizen. She is entitled to register, but her mother can’t afford it. In O’s own words: “I was born in this country and have lived here all my life. I feel as British as any of my friends and it’s not right that I am excluded from citizenship by a huge fee. I want to be able to do all the things my friends can. I don’t want to have to worry they will find out I don’t have a British passport and think that means I am not the same as them.” Three-year-old A would be entitled to automatic citizenship if not for the fact that her mother is married to someone other than her father; her family can’t afford the registration fee either. As Jay J said, children without citizenship are “in an obviously precarious position, and in addition to their risk of being removed or deported have limited or no access to the welfare state”. But the registration fee had been unsuccessfully challenged before, in Williams [2017] EWCA Civ 98. The decision in Williams closed the door on some of the legal arguments. In particular, the claimants failed on the argument that the fee was so high as to make the right to register impossible to realise in practice. Failure to consider children’s best interests A different argument did land. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 instructs the Home Office to consider the best interests of children in immigration, asylum and nationality cases. Jay J found, in short, that the Home Office had not bothered to weigh up the best interests of children in making the fees policy: “...there is no evidence in the voluminous papers before me that his client [the Secretary of State] has identified where the best interests of children seeking registration lie, has begun to characterise those interests properly, has identified that the level of fee creates practical difficulties for many (with some attempt being made to evaluate the numbers); and has then said that wider public interest considerations, including the fact that the adverse impact is to some extent ameliorated by the grant of leave to remain, tilts the balance.” Sir James Eadie QC for the Home Office argued that Parliament had considered, and rejected, attempts to lower the fee. It was therefore not for the courts to interfere. But the court found that “nowhere on the Government’s side” in these debates “has there been any recognition of where the best interests of children might repose”. But Jay J rejected an argument based on the Equality Act 2010, saying that “impecuniosity is not a protected characteristic”. Nor did he quash the relevant fee regulations, granting instead a declaration that they are unlawful unless there is a best interests consideration process under section 55. Solange Valdez-Symonds of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens said: “It is significant that the court has recognised British citizenship is the right of these and thousands of children and that the consequences of blocking their registration rights is alienating and harmful.” While that recognition is a great step forward, the fact remains that tens of thousands of British children are growing up in this country deprived of their rights to its citizenship, including by this shamelessly profiteering fee. The High Court has granted a certificate to the claimants to apply direct to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal on the point they lost on. It has also granted permission to appeal to the Home Office. In the meantime, there is no immediate basis for those who have paid a registration fee to be refunded. There may eventually be a case for refunds, though, particularly if the fee is ultimately reduced. >>> Tier 1 (Investor) – the programme's evolution since its conception in 1994 -October 1994: Immigrant Investor scheme launched, with a minimum threshold of £1 million. -June 2008: Tier 1 (Investor) introduced. -February 2014: Migration Advisory Committee review finds limited economic benefit to Tier 1 (Investor) and make various recommendations for adjustments. -November 2014: minimum investment raised to £2 million; caseworkers are empowered to refuse applications if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the money was obtained unlawfully. -April 2015: investors required to open UK bank account, with associated money laundering checks, before applying. - March 2019: government bonds removed as qualifying investment. >>> Tribunal shoots down £100m investment visa loan scheme – dealing with the Russian etc investments: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/393.html The Upper Tribunal has shot down a scheme under which people looking for a Tier 1 (Investor) visa would borrow money from one company and invest in a closely related company. In a judicial review against the Home Office for refusing the Tier 1 (Investor) applications of two Chinese citizens who had availed of the scheme, the tribunal held that the money was not under their control as required by the Immigration Rules. The case is R (JW & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tier 1 Investor; control; investments) [2019] UKUT 393 (IAC). The case involved a woman known as A1, who was applying for an extension of her Tier 1 (Investor) visa, and another called Jiaqi Wu who was seeking indefinite leave to remain. The essence of the scheme was that a company called Maxwell Holding would lend £1 million to clients such as A1, “the express purpose of which was to enable A1 to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules as a Tier 1 (Investor)”. The owner of Maxwell Holding was Dmitry Petrovich Kirpichenko. The clients then signed the money loaned to them over to a company called Eclectic Capital. The sole director of this company was Mr Kirpichenko’s wife, Nika Kirpichenko. Over 100 people have used this service, according the judgment. Eclectic Capital therefore ended up with a pot of over £100 million, which was mostly invested in “companies in Russia”. The question was whether this arrangement satisfied the requirement of the Immigration Rules that money used for Tier 1 (Investor) must be under the investor’s “control”. The Home Office, in refusing A1 a visa extension and refusing Ms Wu settlement, said that the loan agreement required them to put the Maxwell Holding money into Eclectic Capital. It accordingly took the view that “the money that was lent to you is not under your control because it is evident that you are not able to invest the money anywhere other than in Eclectic”. In other words, they never had control of it in the first place. The investors launched a judicial review, arguing among other things that “something less than complete and unfettered control is required” to satisfy the Immigration Rules. They claimed to have “effective and ultimate control” over the loans and investments, as neither were secured; they had the legal right to channel the Maxwell loan into a company of their choosing; and they had the right to redeem their shares in Eclectic after six years. The Upper Tribunal found that the word “control” means that the person should be able to “manage and/or direct the use of the money, asset or investment” in real life, including an element of “choice and use”. It also noted that while the investors claimed to be making a business decision to invest their loaned money in Eclectic, the returns were so poor — the upfront interest payments outweighing the promised dividends after six years — that it “cannot possibly have been for good commercial reasons”. This, combined with the links between the two companies and the terms of the loan, entitled the Home Office to conclude that the investors did not choose to invest in Eclectic but were required to. For good measure, it held that the Eclectic shares were not a qualifying investment for the purposes of Tier 1 (Investor). They were caught by paragraph 65(b) of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules, which disqualifies investments in companies that simply pool the money and invest it in other firms, rather than using it to run their own business. The tribunal also refused permission to appeal. The official headnote “1. The meaning of ‘control’ in paragraph 245ED(e) and in Appendix A (specifically in Table 8B and 9B) of the Immigration Rules is to be interpreted in accordance with its natural and ordinary meaning, namely that a person has the authority to manage and/or direct the use of the money, asset or investment (depending on the context). It includes not just a question of legal or beneficial ownership but includes an element of choice of use. The money must be under a person’s control at the point of investment. 2. To determine whether a person has the requisite control, it is necessary to look at all of the facts and circumstances of the case and with reference to the overriding requirement in paragraph 245ED(e) of the Immigration Rules (at least for the purposes of an application for further leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Investor) Migrant) that the “assets and investment he is claiming points for must be wholly under his control”. 3. The terms listed in paragraph 65(b) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules are not to be interpreted by reference to statutory definitions outside of the Immigration Rules but in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation applicable to the Immigration Rules, the terms bearing their ordinary and natural meaning.”

19 December 2019 – 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) >>> Court of Justice case confirms lower legal protections for Brits visiting the EU after Brexit: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=221510&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7338990 In all likelihood, the events of last Thursday mean the UK will be exiting the EU on 31 January 2020 with a deal. This means EU law will remain in place during a transitional period at least until 31 December 2020. After this date, either the transitional period is extended (although the government appears to be moving to legislate against this), or an agreement on the future UK-EU relationship is put in place — or there is no deal from 1 January 2021. What future arrangements are in place matters for many obvious reasons. Perhaps not so high on the list would be British citizens’ holidays in the EU. Or perhaps we will all need a long holiday by the time this is all over. Travelling to the EU after Brexit Currently, holidaying in the EU is covered by the free movement directive. But if we assume that there will be no extension to the transitional period, a new regime will be in place from 1 January 2021 onwards. Other non-EEA citizens — as British nationals will be at after Brexit — can enter the EU’s Schengen travel zone for 90 days either with a pre-obtained Schengen visa or, for nationalities that don’t need a visa, as long as they meet entry conditions broadly similar to the Schengen visa requirements. The political declaration on the future EU/UK relationship aims at putting short-term UK visitors to the EU into the visa-free category (and vice versa for short-term EU visitors to the UK). These non-visa nationals will still have to get pre-travel authorisation from 2021 under the proposed ETIAS system, based on a similar system that already exists for the USA. The UK government has plans to introduce a similar scheme. The purpose of pre-travel authorisation is to pick up on security risks presented by non-visa nationals before they travel and enter the destination country. But what happens if you find yourself in hot-water after you have entered an EU member state for a visit? This situation was examined by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C 380/18 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v EP. The treatment of non-EU citizens who get in trouble in Europe The case was about a non-EEA citizen visiting the Schengen zone under the visa-free arrangements mentioned above. He was arrested in the Netherlands for a drugs offence. The Dutch authorities moved to expel EP on the basis that the arrest and suspicion of committing a crime alone was sufficient to show that he presented a security risk. EP tried to argue that although he was not protected by the free movement directive, the approach taken to expulsion in this directive should be applied to their situation. This would mean that expulsion has to be based on a threat to public policy; that is, the person’s conduct has to represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society. That represents a relatively high bar to removal. The Court of Justice rejected this submission. It pointed out that, had the drafters of the Schengen legislation wanted it to set the same high standards for expulsion as under the free movement directive, they would have worded the Schengen security clauses that way. The conclusion the court came to was that: “… Article 6(1)(e) of the Schengen Borders Code cannot be interpreted as precluding, as a matter of principle, a national practice under which a return decision is issued to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement, who is present on the territory of the Member States for a short stay, if that national is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, without it having been established that his or her conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State concerned. [Paragraph 46]”. Whilst we hope that no British citizens find themselves in such an unfortunate situation, this case does highlight the inferior treatment afforded to those no longer in the EU club. It also seems likely that, under the ETIAS pre-travel authorisation regime, some British citizens with criminal convictions will find themselves denied approval to visit the EU for holidays. >>> Upper Tribunal slams Home Office for inability to read dictionary: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/394.html The Upper Tribunal has rejected an attempt by the Home Office to ignore the clear meaning of an Immigration Rule. Sahebi (Para 352(iii): meaning of “existed”) Pakistan [2019] UKUT 394 (IAC) is about paragraph 352A(iii), which covers reunion for the family members of people who have been granted refugee status in the UK. It states that in order for someone to qualify for refugee family reunion as a partner, the relationship must have existed before the refugee left their country of origin. Mrs Sahebi is from Pakistan. She is married to Mr Sahebi, who successfully claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. Before Mr Sahebi left Pakistan, their relationship broke down due to domestic violence and they separated, but remained married. The couple reconciled after Mr Sahebi left Pakistan and applied for refugee family reunion. The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the marriage clearly “existed” before Mr Sahebi left Pakistan to come to the UK and allowed the appeal, granting the couple family reunion. In the Upper Tribunal, the Home Office argued that the word “existed” in paragraph 352 actually means “subsisted”. Since the couple were separated at the point of Mr Sahebi’s departure, the Home Office argued that the marriage was no longer subsisting and did not meet the family reunion requirements. The Upper Tribunal consulted the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th Ed, 2007) and concluded that “existed” merely refers to a condition objectively being fulfilled, whereas “subsisted” implies an additional qualitative element. When drafting the Immigration Rules the Home Office had deliberately used the term “existed”. Interpreting it to mean “subsisted” would amount to re-writing the rules. The Upper Tribunal therefore concluded: “On its true construction, para 352A(iii) of the Immigration Rules is satisfied by showing nothing more than the formal existence of a marriage or civil partnership as at the time of the refugee’s departure from his/her country of former habitual residence. In contrast to less formal relationships, there is no requirement to show that the relationship had the qualitative character of it having subsisted at the time of the refugee’s departure.”. >>> UKVI update: Sponsor change of circumstances form: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sponsor-change-of-circumstances-form Interactive form for sponsors who do not have access to the sponsorship management system (SMS) to appoint a new level 1 user. Form has been updated and edited description to reflect that the form should no longer be used to surrender part of a licence.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиента из Сенегала получили визу ПМЖ и воссоединилась с ее отцом в Великобритании. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения заявление: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

18 December 2019 – 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) >>> Supreme Court says Zambrano test is usually a simple one: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/59.html The Supreme Court has found in the case of Patel and Shah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 59 that the carers of EU citizen children can derive a Zambrano right of residence only where the child will as a practical matter of fact be forced to leave the EU. The best interests of the child are not strictly relevant to that question. This stark finding is leavened somewhat by the court also holding that parental choice or preference plays no role in the assessment, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeal. >>> Home Office submits inaccurate witness statement in national security case: siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/SR%20-%20OPEN%20Judgment%20-%2004.12.2019.pdf SR, who is from Iraq but settled in the UK in 2002, wants to become a British citizen. The Home Office does not want to grant him citizenship, accusing SR of holding “extremist Islamic beliefs” and raising concerns about “financial irregularities”. The case came to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, SIAC, because of the national security angle: SR v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SN/71/2018). Ms Hughes from the Home Office submitted a witness statement about the department’s decision to deny SR citizenship. In the witness statement, she said that she had reviewed the paperwork in SR’s case. But the judges spotted that the document she was referring to, a “minute sheet”, was not about SR at all. The judges were not best pleased, expressing “our dismay at this turn of events”. They added that SIAC: “…relies on the Secretary of State and her representatives to prepare these cases with meticulous care. It is particularly important, also, that applicants, such as SR, who are able to play only a limited part in their appeals and applications, should have complete confidence that the Secretary of State is taking every possible care in the decision making [in] their cases, and in preparing those cases for court.”.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня одна из клиенток из Казахстана получила британский паспорт. До обращения в Legal Centre (www.legalcentre.org) клиентка пробовала подавать заявление сама и получила несколько отказов. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу общего сопровождения заявление: https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели положительно и очень быстро. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, 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

Вот ответ на Ваш вопрос: any previous UK immigration applications Гостевые визы - обычно туда не входят, хотя некоторые указывают. Остальные - нужно указывать

Пожалуйста. Был рад помочь Вам.

16 December 2019 – 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) >>> The Conservative plan for immigration after Brexit - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "For too long, politicians have been out of touch with the hardworking majority’s concerns about immigration. The vote to leave the EU was, amongst other things, a vote to take back control of our borders. That is why, with a functioning Conservative majority government, we will get Brexit done, end free movement and introduce a new Australian-style points-based immigration system. This new system will give us control over who comes to this country on the basis of the skills they have to offer – not where they come from. Only by installing proper controls and ending the preferential treatment of EEA migrants will we be able to attract the brightest and the best from around the world to come here and contribute to our society and economy, while relying on far fewer low-skilled migrants and getting overall migration down. Here we outline three key changes a majority Conservative government would make after Brexit: 1. A points-based system o Our single new system will allocate points on a range of criteria. It will, de facto, allocate people into three separate categories:  ‘Exceptional talent / contribution’ – highly educated migrants who have received world-leading awards or otherwise demonstrated exceptional talent, sponsored entrepreneurs setting up a new business or investors. These will not require a job offer and will receive fast-track entry.  ‘Skilled workers’ – workers who meet the criteria of the points-based system and have a confirmed job offer. Special types – such as our NHS Visa – will also receive fast-track entry and reduced fees.  ‘Sector-specific rules-based’ – made up of specific temporary schemes such as for low-skilled labour, youth mobility or short term visits (e.g., touring). These will be revised on an ongoing basis based on expert advice from the MAC. These visas will be time-limited and will not provide a path to settlement. o The new system will give us control of migration, allow us to reduce total net migration, while meeting the needs of our economy and improving the UK’s productivity. o Once we have ended free movement and introduced electronic travel authorisation (ETAs), we will be able to screen all prospective migrants on the basis of previous criminality, and bar those with serious convictions from coming here. 2. A new role for the Migration Advisory Committee (‘the MAC’) o The MAC will be required to publish an annual report via a public letter to the Home Secretary, advising the Government on how to deliver on its objectives – i.e. to get net migration down while addressing emerging gaps in the labour market – including sector specific advice. o The role of the MAC will continue to be advisory and the Home Secretary will have full discretion over decisions related to the future immigration system. o The MAC will also be required to monitor the needs of the labour market on an ongoing basis to ensure that the Home Secretary has the information needed to make decisions rapidly. o Once the new digital immigration status is in place, this will enable the MAC to better understand the impact of immigration on specific communities. 3. A digital immigration status to crack down on illegal overstaying beyond 2022 o The fundamental principle of the new immigration system is that the government will be in control. o Beyond 2022, all migrants will have a full digital status, making it easier for legal migrants to prove their status, as well as allowing for improved enforcement. o All visas will be time-limited, with usual indefinite leave to remain rules applying for those who are identified as ‘exceptional’ or ‘high-skilled’. In-country switching between visas will be allowed, but overstaying a visa will count against an individual in their new application. o All migrants will pay the health surcharge for every year of their visa, unless and until they have gained settled status – usually not before they have been here for five years. o We will ensure equal treatment of EEA and non-EEA migrants’ regarding access to benefits, making sure people pay in before they can take out. In order to achieve this we will: • Immediately begin work to set up a formal exchange programme with the Australian and Canadian governments to allow experts to come to the UK and share best practice with officials during the development of the system. • Appoint an expert implementation group to ensure roll-out of the new immigration system from January 2021. Commenting, Priti Patel, Home Secretary said: “The vote to leave the EU was a vote to take back control of our borders, and that is exactly what a Conservative majority government will do by getting Brexit done and ending freedom of movement. “Immigration will finally be subject to democratic control. We will be able to create a fairer system, which will attract the brightest and the best from around the world to come here and contribute to our society and economy, while getting overall immigration down. “Corbyn’s Labour want uncontrolled and unlimited immigration, placing huge strain on public services like our NHS.” >>> Visa decision waiting times: applications outside the UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/visa-decision-waiting-times-applications-outside-the-uk?utm_source=ceecdd1b-e452-4cff-9511-f7e6a7373d58&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate >>>UKVI update: EUSS Caseworker Guidance Suitability requirements: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip9cDF7rnmAhUL8BQKHXshAO0QFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F851469%2FEUSS-suitability-guidance-v2.0.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0qMYelCCnjhl0iTxTGTuny