British Lawyer

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила ПМЖ/ILR (Indefine Leave to Remain) как жена Британского гражданина. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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

Переход на EU Pre-Settled Status для родителей с гостевой визой На основании существующего Appendix EU в данный период времени вероятно осуществить изменение иммиграционного статуса для родителей, имеющих британские гостевые визы, чьи дети являются гражданами EU или чьи дети (не граждане EU) являются супругами граждан EU. Например, если Вы из России, и Вы находитесь в браке с гражданином EU, Вы живете в Великобритании и у Вас сейчас в гостях родители из России, то Ваши родители потенциально могли бы остаться в Великобритании и получить EU Pre-Settled Status. Каждая дело рассматривается индивидуально во время предварительной консультации, на которую Вы можете записаться по этой ссылке: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html

Переход на EU Pre-Settled Status для родителей с гостевой визой На основании существующего Appendix EU в данный период времени вероятно осуществить изменение иммиграционного статуса для родителей, имеющих британские гостевые визы, чьи дети являются гражданами EU или чьи дети (не граждане EU) являются супругами граждан EU. Например, если Вы из России, и Вы находитесь в браке с гражданином EU, Вы живете в Великобритании и у Вас сейчас в гостях родители из России, то Ваши родители потенциально могли бы остаться в Великобритании и получить EU Pre-Settled Status. Каждая дело рассматривается индивидуально во время предварительной консультации, на которую Вы можете записаться по этой ссылке: https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html

28 November 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) >>> Child abuse victim given deportation reprieve: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/2027.html The Court of Appeal has given judgment in CI (Nigeria) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 2027, providing further guidance on the law relating to the deportation of foreign criminals, and in particular on the meaning in section 117C(4) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 of “lawful residence”, “social and cultural integration”, and “very significant obstacles” to integration. >>> Supreme Court finds detention of asylum seekers unlawful: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0197.html The Supreme Court has confirmed in the case of Hemmati v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56 that the detention of asylum seekers for their removal to other EU states under the Dublin Regulation was unlawful between 1 January 2014 and 15 March 2017, when new regulations were belatedly adopted. There are no publicly available statistics on how many asylum seekers are detained for removal under the Dublin system, but we do know that around 10,000 “take back” requests were sent by the UK to other EU states during that time frame. When the EU legislated specifically to protect those being transferred between member states under a new Dublin Regulation, and that regulation came into force on 1 January 2014, the UK failed to implement any new or specific protections. The Supreme Court finds that existing UK law was insufficient, making the detention of the claimants and all other Dublin detainees unlawful.

А для чего Вы делаете то, что потом нужно будет переделывать ? Не проще ли сразу подать на EU Settled Status ?

27 November 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) >>> A respondent cannot withdraw an appeal, confirms the Upper Tribunal: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/357.html “Be careful what you wish for!”, could be the headline for the case of Ahmed (rule 18; PTA; Family Court materials) Pakistan [2019] UKUT 357 (IAC). Haseeb Ahmed, a Pakistani citizen, was initially refused an application for leave to remain by the Secretary of State. He won his appeal at the First-tier Tribunal, but the Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Shortly before the date of the appeal hearing, Mr Ahmed’s solicitors wrote to the tribunal asking to withdraw the appeal, so that they could submit a new application for leave to remain for their client. This mistake could have been made by many, but they simply had no appeal to withdraw, as the Secretary of State was the party who appealed. Instead, the Upper Tribunal treated the request as meaning that Mr Ahmed was no longer going to defend his case and the Secretary of State’s case was unopposed. It then proceeded to rule in the Secretary of State’s favour, finding that the initial refusal of Mr Ahmed’s application for leave to remain was correct. Mr Ahmed was back to square one, but now with two negative decisions against him! Thankfully in this case, Mr Ahmed went on to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which sent the decision back to the Upper Tribunal. This time, the Upper Tribunal ruled in Mr Ahmed’s favour, finding that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision had been correct. So things could have gone even worse for poor Mr Ahmed… A second procedural issue which arose in this case was about appeal deadlines. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal well out of time. This didn’t seem to have been picked up by anyone until the second Upper Tribunal hearing, when Mr Ahmed’s legal representatives tried to argue that the Secretary of State’s application could not be admitted on that basis. The Upper Tribunal found, rather ironically, that it was too late to raise this issue. When a party wants to raise the issue of lateness, they should do it before the Upper Tribunal makes a substantive decision on whether or not the First-tier Tribunal erred in law. Last but not least, the tribunal reminds us again of the danger of submitting family court documents without permission, as Rachel explained in detail in her recent post on the issue. In this case, the Upper Tribunal picked up that Mr Ahmed’s legal representatives did not have permission to disclose the documents and wrote to the Designated Family Judge to bring the matter to their attention. Mr Ahmed’s lawyers just need to hope they won’t be found in contempt of the Family Court. The official headnote: “(1) Where P is the respondent to the Secretary of State’s appeal in the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow P’s appeal, P cannot give notice under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 so as to withdraw his appeal, since P has no appeal in the Upper Tribunal. In such a situation, the giving of notice under rule 17 to withdraw P’s case will, if the Upper Tribunal gives consent, have the effect of leaving the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal unopposed and therefore may well lead to a reasoned decision from the Upper Tribunal, setting aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. (2) If an application by a party for permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal has been granted by that Tribunal, but the application was made late and time was not extended by the granting judge, the other party may raise the timeliness issue before the Upper Tribunal, as described in Samir (FtT permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 3 (IAC), provided the Upper Tribunal has not reached a substantive decision. The issue may not, however, be raised after the Upper Tribunal has reached such a decision. Rule 6 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 means that the grant of permission by the First-tier Tribunal is to be treated as valid, notwithstanding the procedural irregularity, with the result that the ensuing decision of the Upper Tribunal is, likewise, valid. (3) If a party intends to rely before the Tribunal on material emanating from proceedings in the Family Court, that party must ensure that the material can be disclosed, without any breach of restrictions on the disclosure of such material. Failure to do so may amount to contempt of the Family Court. Judges in the Immigration and Asylum jurisdiction must be alert to this issue.”

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиент из Израиля получил продление его супружеской визы как супруг британской гражданки по категории Appendix FM Partner (заявление FLR(M)). Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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

26 November 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) >>> Good Friday Agreement doesn’t stop Northern Irish people being born automatically British: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/355.html Most people born in Northern Ireland have dual citizenship, British and Irish. Generally people apply for the passport of the country which they identify with — nationalists for Irish passports, unionists for British — and are never troubled by the legal fact that they technically possess the other nationality as well. The recently reported case of De Souza (Good Friday Agreement: nationality) United States of America [2019] UKUT 355 (IAC) is part of a campaign, led by the redoubtable Emma DeSouza, challenging this state of affairs. Ms DeSouza accepts only her Irish citizenship and strongly objects to having British nationality, to the point that she will not use the procedure available to renounce it (as that would be to acknowledge having British citizenship in the first place). Ms DeSouza says that her position — that Northern Irish people cannot be forced to start life with dual citizenship — is supported by the Good Friday Agreement. That is because the UK and Ireland said in that agreement that both countries: “…recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.”. This campaign has gained the support, or at any rate the attention, of the prime ministers of both countries. The attempt to change the legal position on citizenship via the courts has, however, been rejected by the Upper Tribunal. The case arose out of Mr DeSouza’s visa problems, as an American who wished to live with his wife in Northern Ireland. In an attempt to avoid being caught by the notoriously harsh family immigration rules that apply to the spouses of British citizens, he applied for a residence card as the spouse of an EU citizen. The Home Office said that this procedure is not available to people who have British citizenship, Ms DeSouza being legally a UK citizen as well as Irish. This will be little surprise to those familiar with the case of C-434/09 McCarthy, in which the facts were similar. The First-tier Tribunal found that “the constitutional changes effected by the Good Friday Agreement with its annexed British-Irish Agreement, the latter amounting to an international treaty between sovereign governments, supersede the British Nationality Act 1981 in so far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned”. The Upper Tribunal reversed this finding. The headnote to its decision says simply: “The Belfast (or Good Friday) Agreement did not amend the law of British citizenship, as contained in the British Nationality Act 1981.”. That is a very short official summary for an Upper Tribunal case. It reflects the fact that this is Law 101: international treaties do not override Acts of Parliament (or indeed Acts of the Oireachtas in Ireland). Members of the public are, of course, entitled to be surprised that a treaty as eminent as the Good Friday Agreement doesn’t have that effect. But the Upper Tribunal pointed out that it is not altogether clear that the “birthrate provisions” quoted above were ever intended to give people the right to reject his or her Irish or British citizenship, in a legal rather than personal identity sense. If the point was to give people the right to turn dual nationality on and off at will, it is “inconceivable” that the Agreement wouldn’t have said so explicitly, or that this would not have been written into the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The judgment also raises the possibility that citizenship by consent was never intended or devised because it would be unworkable. It said that “a person’s nationality cannot depend in law on an undisclosed state of mind, which could change from time to time, depending on how he or she felt”. There is also the minor snag that it would mean everyone in Northern Ireland being born stateless: if the UK could not confer automatic citizenship at birth to Northern Irish people, nor logically could Ireland. Such a result would be in breach of the UN conventions on statelessness, which both countries have signed. The Upper Tribunal, understandably, was in no rush to violate one treaty in the name of another. The couple are crowdfunding in the amount of £120,000 to take the case to the Court of Appeal — but if there is a satisfactory solution, it seems more likely to emerge from politics rather than the law.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередной клиент из России получил его первую визу супруга британской гражданки по категории Appendix FM Partner. Заявление подавалось в России по ускоренному принципу (Fast Track). Заявление было не простое – клиентку пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиентом по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели за несколько недель. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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, После получения визы невесты и заключения брака в UK Вы без выезда можете получить визу жены. Даже есть опция получить визу жены за 1 день. На визу жены можете подавать хоть в день заключения брака. Требований жить х времени после заключения брака нет.

Приветствую. Обычно нужно усыновление как минимум. Для спонсоров из разных стран - разные условия. Например, иногда нужно прожить с ребенком в его стране 1.5 года. Много чего еще нужно. Обычно все начинается с детального разговора.

25 November 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) >>> UKVI Information on Settlement Visa Applications – Supporting Document Submission Options Settlement Visa Applications – Supporting Document Submission Options VFS Global If the settlement application is lodged in a location where VFS Global is the UKVI commercial partner, then there are four options available to submit supporting documents: 1. Self-upload supporting documents without an additional charge. 2. Document Scanning Assistance Service at the Visa Application Centre, for an additional fee. 3. UK settlement scanning service – walk in, for an additional fee. 4. UK settlement Scanning Service – postal, for an additional fee. The link below describes these services in detail including the fee – https://www.vfsglobal.co.uk/in/en/vacs/supporting-documents TLScontact If the settlement application is lodged in a location where TLScontact is the UKVI commercial partner, then there are two options available to submit supporting documents: 1. Self-upload supporting documents without an additional charge. 2. Assisted Scanning Settlement service in the UK – postal, for an additional fee. The link below describes these services in detail including the fee – https://static.tlscontact.com/media/global/ww/uk/settlement_visa_applications_-_new_additional_process.pdf

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередной клиент из России получил продление визы по категории Tier 2 PBS Dependent. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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

22 November 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) >>> Ever wondered how Sopra Steria wants the applicant to prepare/upload their supporting documents ? Here is a photo of their Guidance, found in their office one day: https://legalcentre.org/files/Sopra_Steria_Document_Sorting_List.jpg >>> Tier 2 of the points-based system Updated guidance: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3ve230f3lAhVOrxoKHcAjCZMQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F846380%2Ftier-2-v34.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw23a9V-N18_zD9dVywyhFQQ This version replaces the Tier 2 modernised guidance version 33.0 which has been withdrawn and archived. It has been updated following changes to the Immigration Rules on 6 October 2019 to: • remove PhD-level occupations from the Tier 2 limit • add an exemption from the 180 days absence requirements for continuous leave for applicants in PhD-level occupations who are undertaking research overseas • add statutory parental leave, sick leave, absence due to assisting in a national or international environmental or humanitarian crisis overseas and taking part in legal strike action to the list of permitted absences that can benefit from certain exemptions under Tier 2 • add the Department of Education ‘Teaching Vacancies’ service on GOV.UK as an acceptable form of advertising under the Resident Labour Test • make other minor amendments. The guidance also confirms those completing 12 months of the equivalent level of a PhD not just a PhD can switch into Tier2 from Tier4. >>> 54-day stopover counts as “in transit” for Refugee Convention: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/1953.html In Idahosa v R [2019] EWCA Crim 1953 the Court of Appeal has ruled that an asylum seeker who had stopped over in the United Kingdom for 54 days en route to Canada can rely on the exception to false documents offences available to refugees. The court took a purposive and generous approach to interpreting the Refugee Convention to conclude that even a stopover of 54 days met the requirement of remaining “in transit” to another country to claim asylum.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из Украины получила визу EEA Family Permit для совместного въезда и проживания в Великобритании с ее мужем - гражданином Евросоюза. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели за пару недель. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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

Работать не обязательно. Главное - выполнить все остальные требования.

21 November 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) >>> 54-day stopover counts as “in transit” for Refugee Convention: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/1953.html In Idahosa v R [2019] EWCA Crim 1953 the Court of Appeal has ruled that an asylum seeker who had stopped over in the United Kingdom for 54 days en route to Canada can rely on the exception to false documents offences available to refugees. The court took a purposive and generous approach to interpreting the Refugee Convention to conclude that even a stopover of 54 days met the requirement of remaining “in transit” to another country to claim asylum.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила ее первую визу жены по категории Appendix FM Partner (виза жены, заявление FLR(M)). Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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 November 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) >>> How long can a spouse of a British citizen/Settled person can remain outside the UK on one single visit while caring for a sick relative ? Guidance: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830599/5-and-10-year-partner-parent-private-life-and-exceptional-circumstances-v2.0-ext.pdf#page25 Continue to collect evidence of a genuine and subsisting relationship with partner, and mother’s medical condition. E-LTRP.1.10. The applicant and their partner must intend to live together permanently in the UK and, in any application for further leave to remain as a partner (except where the applicant is in the UK as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner) and in any application for indefinite leave to remain as a partner, the applicant must provide evidence that, since entry clearance as a partner was granted under paragraph D-ECP1.1. or since the last grant of limited leave to remain as a partner, the applicant and their partner have lived together in the UK or there is good reason, consistent with a continuing intention to live together permanently in the UK, for any period in which they have not done so. >>> Can I extension my Visitor’s visa in the UK ? Only in limited circumstances. See Part 8 of the relevant Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-v-visitor-rules >>> My visa was issued but the start date is in 3 months from now. Can I Enter the UK before my visa starts ? Not recommended as under the Para 30C - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-1-leave-to-enter-or-stay-in-the-uk#pt1entryclearance : “An Immigration Officer may cancel an entry clearance which is capable of having effect as leave to enter if the holder arrives in the United Kingdom before the day on which the entry clearance becomes effective or if the holder seeks to enter the United Kingdom for a purpose other than the purpose specified in the entry clearance.” >>> EU children can be lawfully resident in the UK without exercising treaty rights: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/356.html The Upper Tribunal judgment in MS (British citizenship; EEA appeals) Belgium [2019] UKUT 356 (IAC) confirms that certain EU citizen children in the UK can be considered lawfully resident for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even if they (or their EU citizen parents or carers) have not exercised treaty rights and have no official Home Office documentation. The Upper Tribunal’s decision The tribunal agreed with the Secretary of State’s position that an adult EU national who is not exercising treaty rights and who has no other lawful basis for being in the UK is not lawfully resident here (see paragraphs 133 to 135 and 138). But compliance with Article 8 requires tribunals to make appropriate allowances, particularly where an EU citizen was a minor during their time in the UK. A flexible approach should be adopted where the facts suggest that an EU child’s time in the UK should not be categorised as unlawful. The official headnote "(1) If, on appeal, an issue arises as to whether the removal of a person (P) from the United Kingdom would be unlawful because P is a British citizen, the tribunal deciding the appeal must make a finding on P’s citizenship; just as the tribunal must do so where the consideration of the public interest question in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 involves finding whether another person falls within the definition of a “qualifying child” or “qualifying partner” by reason of being a British citizen. (2) The fact that P might, in the past, have had a good case to be registered as a British citizen has no material bearing on the striking of the proportionality balance under Article 8(2) of the ECHR. The key factor is not whether P had a good chance of becoming a British citizen, on application, at some previous time but is, rather, the nature and extent of P’s life in the United Kingdom. (3) If P is prevented by regulation 37 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 from initiating an appeal under those Regulations whilst P is in the United Kingdom, it would defeat the legislative purpose in enacting regulation 37 if P were able, through the medium of a human rights appeal brought within the United Kingdom, to advance the very challenge to the decision taken under the Regulations, which Parliament has ordained can be initiated only from abroad. (4) In considering the public interest question in Part 5A of the 2002 Act, if P is an EEA national (or family member of an EEA national) who has no basis under the 2016 Regulations or EU law for being in the United Kingdom, P requires leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971. If P does not have such leave, P will be in the United Kingdom unlawfully for the purpose of section 117B(4) of the 2002 Act during the period in question and, likewise, will not be lawfully resident during that period for the purpose of section 117C(4)(a). (5) The modest degree of flexibility contained in section 117A(2) of the 2002 Act, recognised by the Supreme Court in Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 58, means that, depending on the facts, P may nevertheless fall to be treated as lawfully in the United Kingdom for the purpose of those provisions, during the time that P was an EU child in the United Kingdom; as in the present case, where P was under the control of his parents; was able to attend school and college without questions being asked as to P’s status; and where no action was taken or even contemplated by the respondent in respect of P or his EU mother."

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre © Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила ПМЖ/ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) по категории Appendix FM Partner как жена гражданина Великобритании. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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

19 November 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) >>> Can a PBS dependant child of a Tier 4 general holder switch to a Tier 4 Child in the UK? The answer is “No” as on the basis of para: "245ZZC. Requirements for leave to remain (b) The applicant must have, or have last been granted, entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain as a Tier 4 migrant" fails, as a PBS dependant child does not have leave as a Tier 4 migrant. However, there are no restrictions against a PBS dependant from studying.

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередная клиентка из России получила ПМЖ/ILR(Indefinite Leave to Remain) как жена британского гражданина. Заявление было не простое – клиентке пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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 November 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) >>> Indefinite Leave to Enter (ILE) on-line application form for children to come into the UK can be found here: https://visas-immigration.service.gov.uk/other-ooc >>> Useful successful case on long separation in case of the Entry Clearance as unmarried partners: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2016/OA065352014.html >>> Home Office withdraws appeal in case on s 50(9A) BNA 1981 The Secretary of State has withdrawn her appeal against the decision of the Administrative court in R(ota K, a child by her litigation friend) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 1834 (Admin). The case concerned paternity of a child for the purposes of acquiring British citizenship. K’s passport was withdrawn and she was informed that she was not ‘British’ even though she could prove by DNA that her father is British. Section 50(9A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 says that if a woman is married at the time of a child’s birth, for the purposes of British nationality law, her husband will be deemed to be the father, even if there is irrefutable proof that another man is the biological father. On K’s application for judicial review, the Administrative Court declared that section 50(9A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the BNA) is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR, read with Article 8 ECHR because it discriminates unlawfully against children whose mothers are married to a man other than the child’s father when the child is born. An affected child will not be entitled to British nationality through the biological father but could apply to be registered at the ‘discretion’ of the Home Secretary, at a fee currently of over a thousand pounds (£1012) and, if aged over 10 years subject to a requirement to be of ‘good character’. The judge concluded that although ‘certainty’ under the law was a legitimate aim, the aims did not justify such a fee nor the risks associated with the discretion whether to grant citizenship rather than a right to claim it as the child of a British citizen. The Secretary of State appealed. Permission was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the judge had failed to consider the wider impact of her conclusions on, for example, children born through surrogacy. However, the appeal was later withdrawn with the effect that the declaration made by the court below remains in place. The question is – what next for children who have been discriminated against in this way? In Johnson [2016] UKSC 56, the Supreme Court declared that a provision of the BNA which imposed the ‘good character’ requirement on children required to register as British solely as a consequence of their mother’s marital status as the time of the birth was similarly incompatible with article 14 taken with article 8 as it was discriminatory. In making the declaration the court observed [38]: “… where a person has not automatically acquired citizenship at birth, it is reasonable to expect him to apply for it, even if he is entitled to be registered if he does so. This avoids the risk of inconvenient results and provides everyone with clarity and certainty. But it is not reasonable to impose the additional hurdle of a good character test upon persons who would, but for their parents’ marital status, have automatically acquired citizenship at birth, as this produces the discriminatory result that a person will be deprived of citizenship status because of an accident of birth which is no fault of his.” As a consequence of the court’s declaration, the Home Secretary placed a remedial order before parliament. Any remedial process necessarily takes some time (although in this case much time has been lost as a consequence of the Home Secretary’s withdrawn appeal) and indeed the Secretary of State has a wide discretion whether to take remedial steps by way of a remedial order or draft amended legislation or indeed may elect to do nothing. So, what are affected children to do in the mean time? Next steps Children who may be caught by s 50(9A), for instance by the denial of passports or citizenship are advised to seek expert advice. There are good grounds to argue that the Secretary of State cannot lawfully charge the £1012 fee for registration in such cases. The issue of the ‘good character’ requirement is somewhat more complex. >>> Family life, private life and exceptional circumstances: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/family-life-as-a-partner-or-parent-private-life-and-exceptional-circumstance The latest version states the following changes: "The words ‘(except where entry is being granted as a fiancé, fiancée or proposed civil partner)’ have been deleted from the end of the first paragraph in Decision to grant entry clearance or leave to remain as a partner on a 5 or 10-year route". >>> Guidance update: EU Settlement Scheme: EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-settlement-scheme-caseworker-guidance The document states the following changes: "Amendments have been made to reflect the changes to Appendix EU made in Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules: HC 170, laid on 24 October 2019, mainly in respect of provision for the operation of the EU Settlement Scheme in the event that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal." >>> UKVI guidance update: Criminal investigation: sham marriage: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi1laPVy_PlAhXKx4UKHZmYCPgQFjAAegQIBRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F846190%2Fcriminal-investigations-sham-marriage-v2.0-ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3faIZyHJ20N4vrUVfx8mnY This document includes information about: • the definition of a sham marriage • offences relating to sham marriages • prosecuting authorities for criminal offences in relation to sham marriages • Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) suggested good practice and scenarios for potential suspects and charges • planned visits to a designated register office • European Economic Area (EEA) removal options The latest version states the following changes: "Revised to include up to date definition of sham marriage, update of links to legislation and other guidance products and removal of items no longer required"

Каждый день приносит хорошие новости клиентам Legal Centre Сегодня очередной клиент и его семья из США получили ПМЖ/ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) по категории Tier 2(General), тип заявления - SET(O). Заявление было не простое – клиенту пришлось несколько раз переделывать и добавлять документы. Я работал с клиенткой по принципу полного сопровождения: https://legalcentre.org/Pomosh.html Результат не заставил себя ждать – заявление рассмотрели в тот же день за 4 часа по принципу Super Premium Service. Я помог десяткам тысяч других клиентов, и я могу помочь Вам. Вы можете записаться на 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

Пожалуйста. Рад был Вам помочь.