British Lawyer Опубликовано 13 сентября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 13 сентября, 2016 13 September 2014 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre: <noindex>https://www.legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> •New and updated UKVI Detention Guidance: Guidance on Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy, Rule 35 and other changes <noindex>http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resource/32476/newu...ance-adults-at-</noindex> The Home Office has issued guidance on the new ‘Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention’ policy which came into force yesterday, 12 September 2016. It has amended its guidance in Chapter 55 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance on Detention and Temporary Release to reflect the change in policy. It has also made changes to guidance in Chapters 50 and 60 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance where these deal with the removals window to cover circumstances related to adults at risk in immigration detention. The Home Office has also issued a new Detention Services Order providing guidance on Rule 35 reports. •Case note on Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment in CS C-304/14 Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine. It must be read in conjunction with C-165/14 Rendon Marin a reference from a Spanish court on a similar issue also issued fairly recently. •When can the UK BA return the original ID for the applicant to sit the SELT (English language) test ? According to the UK BA, “what would the Home Office position if a request is made for the return of an identity document to take a SELT test in the following scenarios: 1. the applicant has extant leave; 2. the applicant has leave under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971; 3. the applicant has permission to remain under the Free Movement Directive; 4. the applicant is an overstayer / illegal entrant. In the first three scenarios, the identity document should be returned by the Home Office in order to allow the individual to sit the SELT test. In the last scenario the Home Office may not return the passport to allow the individual to sit the SELT test, as they would be in the UK illegally and the passport would assist in the individual’s removal. Guidance on the power to retain passports is available at <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...uable-documents</noindex> Also, where an individual has requested the return of the identity document after the application has been refused, the Home Office may not return the document as it would assist in the individual’s removal. In cases where an immigration appeal has been held or is in progress the Home Office will make a decision whether to return the passport or not. In the majority of cases the passport should be returned. In exceptional cases where there are serious concerns that the applicant may abscond if the passport is returned, the Home Office will request that the applicant books a SELT test, then will scan the passport and send this with the booking details to the SELT provider to allow the applicant to sit the test. In these cases the Home Office will confirm to the SELT provider that the passport has been checked and there are no concerns about it being genuine.” •The Lords Select Constitution Committee has published its 4th Report, HL Paper 44: The invoking of Article 50, 13 September 2016: <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...nst/44/4402.htm</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 16 сентября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 16 сентября, 2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you" 1.The proposed (not yet implemented) potential new terms and conditions of leave granted to refugees and persons in need of humanitarian protection The proposal explained is a default setting that refugees and persons granted humanitarian protection get three years leave in the first instance, with a possibility of extension of three years at a time and to apply for settlement after 10 years, subject to passing the life and language tests which must be met by other applicants for settlement. It is further proposed that these refugees and persons be given rights to refugee family reunion after two years, rather than immediately. Those who would continue to get five years leave and then a right to settlement, would be: - The resettled - Sur place claimants (persons in the UK when the situation for them in their country of origin changes so that they would risk persecution on return) - Those who have been trafficked but claim asylum as soon as possible -Those who travel directly to the UK and claim immediately on arrival (references to Article 31 of 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and s 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 -Those transferred to the UK under the take charge provisions of Dublin (family unity etc). Although the three year grant would be the default setting, those it would be targeted at particularly would be: - Those who enter the UK unlawfully - Those who claim after they have overstayed - Those who have passed through a safe third country - Those who make self-serving claims 2.Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) calls for an improvement of the Home Office’s family reunion applications handling, press release, 14 September 2016 Home Office too ready to reject family reunion applications when applicants fail to provide sufficient evidence of their eligibility Withdrawal of Home Office commissioned and funded DNA tests identified as a major reason for first time application refusals The ICIBI report invites the Home Office to recognise the impact of avoidable delays on applicants David Bolt, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), calls on the Home Office to better manage family reunion applications and show more understanding of the circumstances and difficulties faced by applicants coming from areas of conflict. Under existing rules, family members of individuals who have been granted asylum in the UK, or five years’ humanitarian protection, can apply to be reunited with their family. The ICIBI inspection found that, since the Home Office stopped commissioning and funding DNA tests to establish family relationships, the number of family reunion applications rejected for failure to produce sufficient evidence has doubled for certain nationalities. Inspectors also found that family reunion applications are often refused rather than being deferred to allow applicants to produce the missing evidence. This means that individuals who are eligible for family reunion are delayed in receiving entry clearance. While it accurately reflects the rules, Home Office guidance to applicants should be more helpful in identifying the evidence they are likely to need to provide in order for their applications to succeed. Mr Bolt asks decision makers to consider all available evidence when processing family reunion applications and, in line with Home Office rules, to take exceptional circumstances and compassionate factors into account when making their decision. David Bolt said:” The family reunion report identifies a number of areas where the Home Office needs to improve. Applicants, stakeholders and others need to be reassured that the Home Office recognises the particular challenges facing many family reunion applicants, and that it manages applications not just efficiently and effectively, but thoughtfully and with compassion”. 3.Revised Detention Services Order 12/2012 Room sharing risk assessment (RSRA): www.gov.uk/government/publications/room-sharing-risk-assessment-rsra Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 19 сентября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 19 сентября, 2016 19 September 2019 UK and EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre. We can help you: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> • Huge increase (in some cases as far as 6 fold) in the immigration appeal costs The Government response to the consultation on proposals to reform the fees charged in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, PLUS Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, 15 September 2016 The consultation paper was published on 21 April 2016 and the closed on 3 June 2016. “The response announces our intention to: - increase the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a decision on the papers from £80 to £490; - increase the fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for an oral hearing from £140 to £800; -introduce a fee of £455 for an application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal; - introduce a fee of £350 for an application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal in that Tribunal (where the application to the First-tier Tribunal has been refused); - introduce an appeal fee in the Upper Tribunal of £510; and - make extensions to the existing exemptions and remissions scheme that applies in the First-tier Tribunal and extend these to apply to fees for appeals in the Upper Tribunal. Full details of the fees changes are available at the following links: <noindex>https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-comm...r-tribunal-fees</noindex> <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations...um-chamber-fees</noindex> All customer facing IT systems have been amended to reflect these changes. Any applications received prior to the fee change but returned because of an error on the form will attract the new fees”. • Brexit and the Norway Option: the EFTA Court upholds Surinder Singh for EEA nationals, E-28/15 Jabbi 26 July Where an EEA national, pursuant to Article 7(1)( and Article 7( of Directive 2004/38/EC, has created or strengthened a family life with a third country national during residence in an EEA State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive will apply by analogy where that EEA national returns with the family member to his home State. • Government Response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's Second Report of Session 2016–17: The work of the Immigration Directorates (Q4 2015) (16 September 2016) The Government responds to the recent criticisms made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its scrutiny of the work of the Home Office on: • Visa applications • English Language Tests • Asylum cases • The Migration Refusal Pool and curtailment of leave • Immigration detention • Foreign national offenders (FNOs) • Voluntary removals <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...f/675/67502.htm</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 21 сентября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 21 сентября, 2016 21 September 2016. UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” Recent case-law •R (on the application of Sharif Hussein) v First-Tier Tribunal (para 353: present scope and effect) IJR [2016] UKUT 00409 (IAC), 19 September 2016 Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-409</noindex> (1) Lord Neuberger’s judgment in R (ZA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 926 is an authoritative pronouncement on the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgments in R (BA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKSC 7. (2) Parliament’s actions in amending paragraph 353 (fresh claims) of the immigration rules in the light of the changes to the appeal regime made by the Immigration Act 2014, together with its decisions:- (i) to amend, but without bringing into force, the prospective amendments made in 2006 to the definition of “human rights claim” in section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (ii) to amend the existing definition of “human rights claim” in the light of the 2014 Act, show that Parliament intends paragraph 353 to be used to determine whether further submissions constitute a fresh human rights claim for the purpose of “new” section 82 of the 2002 Act. (3) If, in the post-2014 Act world, Parliament had intended paragraph 353 to apply only to the Secretary of State’s certification decisions, then Parliament would have made this plain. If the applicant were correct that paragraph 353 currently has only such a limited ambit, commencing the 2006 amendments to section 113 of the 2002 Act would not enable the Secretary of State to make any significantly greater and/or coherent use of paragraph 353. (4) Parliament’s decision to leave in place the expressions “submissions” and “if rejected” in paragraph 353 are indicative that they continue to serve the function of permitting the Secretary of State to categorise cases as between those that do not amount to a claim at all and those which, though rejected, amount to a fresh human rights claim for the purposes of “new” section 82. (5) The Secretary of State is not the sole arbiter of whether, in any particular case, she has made a decision to refuse a human rights claim, as opposed to refusing to treat submissions as amounting to a fresh claim. •Sheidu (Further submissions; appealable decision) [2016] UKUT 000412 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-412</noindex> If the SSHD makes a decision that is one of those specified in s 82(1), it carries a right of appeal even if the intention was not to treat the submissions as a fresh claim. •Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 00411 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-411</noindex> There is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member. •VOM (Error of law – when appealable) Nigeria [2016] UKUT 00410 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-410</noindex> In a statutory appeal, the right of appeal under s 13 of the 2007 Act does not arise until the Upper Tribunal has completed the process required by s 12. •FA (Libya: art 15©) Libya CG [2016] UKUT 00413 (IAC) Tribunal link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-413</noindex> 1. The question of whether a person is at art 15© risk in Libya should, until further Country Guidance, be determined on the basis of the individual evidence in the case. 2. This decision replaces AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) in respect of assessment of the art 15© risk. •KS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 269 (AAC) <noindex>http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tri...ew.aspx?id=4880</noindex> The Tribunal considered the meaning of ‘compelling evidence’ under Regulation 6(7) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 which requires that a person provides ‘compelling evidence’ that they are seeking employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged in order to have a right to reside as a jobseeker for more than the relevant period (in most cases 91 days). The Tribunal held that this means no more than the requirement for evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is continuing to seek employment and has genuine chances of being engaged. To interpret the phrase as meaning that a higher standard of proof is required would be contrary to EU law. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MB (JSA) (and linked cases) [2016] UKUT 372 (AAC) <noindex>http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tri...ew.aspx?id=4931</noindex> This is a longer and more complex decision but some of the significant points held include the following: 1. Although the fact that someone has been looking for work unsuccessfully for a period of 6 months or more is a relevant factor in determining whether they have a genuine chance of being engaged, it is only one factor among others. 2. The requirement to provide 'compelling' evidence of a genuine chance of being engaged 'cannot raise the bar' of what constitutes a genuine chance of being engaged beyond ‘chances that are founded on something objective and offer real prospects of employment within a reasonable period’.(paras 49-60, especially para 57). 3. Given that evaluating a ‘chance’ necessitates a degree of looking forward, events likely to occur in the near future may be relevant to a claimant’s ‘genuine chance of being engaged’. (para 47) •Housing Benefit: change in rules on temporary absence if absence outside UK The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 were amended by The Housing Benefit and State Pension Credit (Temporary Absence) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 with effect from 28 July 2016. In brief, the amendments mean that if a person is temporarily absent from their home because they are outside the UK, they will cease to be treated as occupying the property during that temporary absence and therefore cease to be entitled to Housing Benefit after 4 weeks in most cases. Prior to 28 July 2016, it was possible to claim Housing Benefit for up to 13 weeks in most cases. There continue to be some limited exceptions. •The European Scrutiny Committee assesses the legal and/or political importance of draft EU legislation Recently it has considered proposals from the European Commission on reform of the EU asylum system, of which there have been two sets. The Commission presented its first set of proposals for asylum reforms in May, which were subject to two scrutiny reports. These proposals aimed to: •streamline the existing Dublin procedures •include a new “fairness mechanism” designed to ensure a more equitable distribution of asylum seekers amongst Member States. •transform the European Asylum Support Office into the EU Agency for Asylum, giving it a stronger mandate to monitor the overall functioning of the common European asylum system •develop the EU’s asylum database (Eurodac) into a broader migration management tool. In July 2016, the EU Commission published its second set of proposals for changes to asylum law, including: •Revise EU rules on who qualifies for international protection •Establish a fully harmonised common EU asylum procedure •Revise EU rules on reception conditions for asylum seekers •Establish a new EU framework for the resettlement of individuals in need of international protection In its report published today, the European Scrutiny Committee recommends that the Government’s opt-in decisions should be debated together in Parliament. It identifies questions which it considers to be relevant to the opt-in debates. An overarching concern is whether the reforms proposed achieve the Commission’s objectives of establishing “a more humane, fair and efficient European asylum policy” and ensuring that the EU “takes on its fair share of the global responsibility to provide a safe haven for the world’s refugees”. The Committee also look further ahead, inviting the Government to consider the impact that harmonised EU rules on asylum would have on the UK once the UK has left the EU. <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...ublished-16-17/</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 23 сентября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 23 сентября, 2016 22 September 2016. UK & EEA Immigration Law updates from the Legal Centre: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> We can help you •EEA law v self-sufficiency. Please note that (page 37 of the Modernised Guidance (EEA nationals - qualified persons) confirms that an applicant can rely on the income of a spouse to show adequate resources for self-sufficiency. However, the wording in the Modernised Guidance specifically mentions that they must have 'regular access' to this income. lt appears, therefore, that having access to the income means the applicant being able to access it from their own account or from a joint account •European passport return service, UK Visas and Immigration, 21 September 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/e...-return-service</noindex> The European passport return service is provided by local authorities or nominated premium service centre. A participating local authority can photocopy your EEA or Swiss passport and forward a copy along with your checklist and application to the Home Office on your behalf. Your passport will then be available for you to use while your application is being processed. Alternatively, you can make an appointment and take your passport and documents to the premium service centre in Belfast or Glasgow. The service is available by appointment only and you must attend your appointment within 5 working days of submitting your online form. The service fee can be obtained by contacting the local authority who will also confirm times appointments are available. The Home Office may contact you for further information after your application has been submitted. Using the European passport return service does not guarantee the success of the application and the local authority cannot provide any advice. This service will not ensure that your form has been correctly completed and correct supporting documents submitted. Please note that this service does not extend to the family members as well as that this service is merely a way of retaining your passport and not in any way a quality service of thoroughly checking your application (see <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Immigration-Applica...n-Service.html)</noindex> before submission to the UK BA •First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2016, Statutory Instrument 2016 No. 928 (L.16), 15 September 2016: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/928/pdfs/uksi_20160928_en.pdf Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 27 сентября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 27 сентября, 2016 27-09-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Domestic workers: The Immigration (Variation of Leave) Order 2016 (SI 2016/948) 26 September 2016: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/94...20160948_en.pdf</noindex> Into effect 6 October 2016. Provides that where a ‘competent authority’ determines that it has ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that a person who has been granted limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an overseas domestic worker, or a private servant in a diplomatic household, is a victim of modern slavery, the person’s leave is extended until 28 days after the competent authority notifies the person of its conclusive decision as to whether or not the person is such a victim. •Two recent cases in the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal have clarified when a worker might in EU law retain his or her status as a worker during a period of unemployment. The cases are KS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 269 AAC and MB and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 372 AAC. •In the case of Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal : Albania) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal has ruled that there is no right of appeal against a decision by the Home Office to refuse a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member: The headnote says: “There is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member.” Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 3 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 3 октября, 2016 30-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> «We can help you» •In two linked cases, CS v UK C-304/14 and Marin v Spain C-165/14, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that Zambran0-like derived rights of residence under EU law are not automatically lost if a crime is committed. Instead, each case must be assessed on its merits and a judgment reached applying normal principles of EU law •Access to the Court of Appeal is being restricted with effect from 3 October 2016 by means of important changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) The headline changes are: -Removal of the automatic right to an oral hearing when renewing an unsuccessful application for permission to appeal. Renewed applications will be determined on the papers, but a judge can exceptionally direct an oral hearing. - The test for permission on second appeals is re-worded to require “a real prospect of success” (in addition to an important point of principle or practice). - New seven day time limit for appeals from refusals of permission to apply for judicial review by the Upper Tribunal. •No appeal to Court of Appeal until Upper Tribunal appeal concluded The Upper Tribunal has ruled that there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against decisions of the Upper Tribunal until Upper Tribunal appeal is finally concluded. This means there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against an Upper Tribunal decision that there was or was not an error of law committed by the First-tier Tribunal. •Fresh claims pay theoretically generate right of appeal after all Two further cases have added to the jurisprudence on whether it is possible under the Immigration Act 2014 to appeal against a refusal of a fresh protection claim. The cases are R (on the application of Sharif Hussein) v First-Tier Tribunal (para 353: present scope and effect) IJR [2016] UKUT 409 (IAC) and Sheidu (Further submissions; appealable decision) [2016] UKUT 412 (IAC). Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 10 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 10 октября, 2016 10-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •A child born outside the UK to a parent who has ILR is not a British Citizen. In other words because the parent with the ILR is not a British citizen, the child cannot benefit from s3 (3) or (5) of the BNA 1981 •New Immigration Fees The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2016 (SI 2016/928 (L.16)) came into effect today. It introduces massive fee increases in immigration and asylum cases. The fee payable for an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for a decision on the papers rises from £80 to £490. The fee for an oral hearing rises from £140 to £800. The amendments apply only in respect of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision taken on or after today •Online versions of the FLR(M) and FLR(FP) application forms are now available. The form needs to be printed at the end and sent off to the Home Office with the required supporting documents: <noindex>https://visas-immigration.service.gov.uk/pr...t/family-routes</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 12 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 12 октября, 2016 12-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •The republic of Ireland citizens are automatically deemed to be "settled" in the United Kingdom on the basis of the section 1(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 •Contact details for immigration compliance and enforcement teams: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...forcement-teams</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 13 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 13 октября, 2016 13-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Ministry of Justice Consultation: Expedited immigration and asylum appeals for detained appellants, 12 October 2016: <noindex>https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-comm...ned-appellants/</noindex> •If one’s EEA application is refused and the one appeals, the one can request the UK BA to issue an additional Certificate of Application (with the right of employment for certain categories) while appeal is pending •The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee met on 11 October and has agreed its 9th Report. First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2016 (SI 2016/928) These Regulations introduce an approximately six-fold increase in the fees for an application to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal raising them to £490 for a decision on papers and £800 for an oral hearing. Fees for an application to the Upper Tribunal will also be introduced by a subsequent order. Of the 147 responses to the consultation on this proposal, 142 respondents disagreed with the proposed fee increase on the ground that it would deny access to justice. It seems as poor practice that the instrument was laid on the last day before the recess and came into effect on the date Parliament returned, thus allowing no time for scrutiny or comment before the Order’s provisions were applied. This Order is drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...leg/46/4602.htm</noindex> •Justice Committee, House of Commons Select Committee inquiry into the implications of Brexit for the justice system, 12 October 2016: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...y-launch-16-17/</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 14 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 14 октября, 2016 14-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” Most recent case-law •Al – Sirri (Asylum – Exclusion – Article 1F©) [2016] UKUT 00448 (IAC) In every case involving exclusion of protection under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, the onus of proof is on the Secretary of State, a detailed and individualised examination of the facts is required, there must be clear and credible evidence of the offending conduct, and the overall evaluative judgment involves the application of a standard higher than suspicion or belief. •Restivo (EEA – prisoner transfer) [2016] UKUT 00449(IAC) The European Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA has replaced the framework previously set out in the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, itself supplemented by the Protocol of 18 December 1997, to provide the framework within which a request may be made to another Member State for the transfer of an EEA national sentenced in the United Kingdom to serve that sentence in his own country. In the United Kingdom context, it is a precondition for making a transfer request that there be in place a deportation order. A decision to make a deportation order is not a decision to transfer a serving prisoner to another Member State to serve his prison there and so in any appeal against a decision to make a deportation order the Tribunal is not concerned with whether there is any legal impediment to such a transfer taking place. Where the personal conduct of a person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the fact that such threat is managed while that person serves his or her prison sentence is not itself material to the assessment of the threat he or she poses. The threat exists, whether or not it cannot generate further offending simply because the person concerned, being imprisoned, has significantly less opportunity to commit further criminal offences. •AB (British citizenship: deprivation; Deliallisi considered) Nigeria [2016] UKUT 00451 (IAC) (1) As held in Deliallisi (British citizen: deprivation appeal: scope) [2013] UKUT 00439 (IAC), in an appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 the Tribunal is required to determine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation. (2) Whilst the Tribunal considering a section 40A appeal cannot pre-judge the outcome of any future legal challenge that the appellant might bring against a decision to remove, following deprivation, the Tribunal must nevertheless take a view as to whether, from its present vantage point, there is likely to be force in any future challenge: cf section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and paragraph 353 of the immigration rules. The stronger the potential case, the less likely it will be that the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation will include removal. (3) A person who had indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, immediately before acquiring British citizenship, does not thereby become entitled to indefinite leave to remain, upon being deprived of such citizenship under section 40 of the 1981 Act. Leave to remain is effectively extinguished by becoming a British citizen, since the system of controls under the Immigration Act 1971 does not apply to British citizens. (4) In a section 40A appeal, an appellant may rely on the ground that deprivation would have a disproportionate effect, as regards the rights flowing from citizenship of the EU, only if, on the facts, there is a “cross-border” element. The finding to the contrary in Deliallisi was reached per incuriam in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in G1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 867. •R (on the application of Hassan and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin – Malta; Charter Art 18) IJR [2016] UKUT 00452 (IAC) (i) There have been significant developments in Malta during recent years. While there may be imperfections in the Maltese asylum decision making processes, these are not sufficient to preclude returns under the Dublin Regulation and, in particular, do not amount to a breach of Article 18 of the EU Charter. (ii) While Article 18 of the EU Charter confers rights of a procedural nature, the evidence does not establish that these will be infringed in the event of either of the Applicants pursuing a fresh asylum claim in Malta. (iii) The limitations of the mechanisms available under Maltese law for challenging refusal of asylum decisions do not infringe Article 18 of the EU Charter. (iv) In judicial review, decisions of the Administrative Court are not binding on the Upper Tribunal: Secretary of State for Justice v RB [2010] UKUT 454 (AAC) applied. (v) Per curiam: Article 18 of the EU Charter provides an avenue for challenging transfer decisions under the Dublin Regulation. (vi) Per curiam: Where a Dublin Regulation transfer decision is challenged under Article 18 of the EU Charter, the ECHR “flagrant breach” standard does not apply. Rather, the test is whether there is a real risk of a breach of Article 18 •MA (ETS – TOEIC testing) [2016] UKUT 00450(IAC) (i) The question of whether a person engaged in fraud in procuring a TOEIC English language proficiency qualification will invariably be intrinsically fact sensitive. (ii) Per curiam: where the voice data generated by TOEIC testing are those of a person other than the person claiming to have undergone the tests, there is no breach of EU or UK data protection laws. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 18 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 18 октября, 2016 18-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •New reports from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 13 October 2016: <noindex>http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/2016...shes-5-reports/</noindex> Including: - An inspection of Border Force operations at Coventry and Langley postal hubs March to July 2016 - A re-inspection of the handling of Tier 4 sponsor licence compliance July 2016 An inspection of the 'hostile environment' measures relating to driving licences and bank accounts January to July 2016 •JCWI plans to bring a judicial review to challenge the government’s decision to raise fees in the Immigration & Asylum Tribunal by around 500%. Fees for paper applications have increased from £80 to £490, and for appeal hearings they have increased from £140 to £800. An urgent £5,000-£10,000 crowd funding campaign has been launched so that the charity can bring this legal challenge. A minimum of £5,000 is needed in order to be able to proceed and to meet the costs risk. JCWI is not a large charity and it does not have the funds to take on the risk alone. It has instructed Liberty to act as its solicitors, and counsel instructed are Laura Dubinsky of Doughty Street, led by Karon Monaghan QC of Matrix. You can contribute here: <noindex>https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/immigrati...fees-challenge/</noindex> •Brexit is causing significant delays in the processing of EU free movement documentation applications. In normal times, before the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016, an EU national could expect a permanent residence certificate to be issued in about 6 weeks and a family member about 4 months or so. Now it is taking the UK BA some 6 months for the non-EEA nationals and some 5 months for the EEA nationals to be issued with Permanent Residence status. The current policy on expediting the UK BA applications under the EEA law can be found on pages 37-38 here: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...on-applications</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 23 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 23 октября, 2016 22-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •R (on the application of Johnson) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) – UKSC 2016/0042 - Supreme Court Article 8 child of unmarried parents case - 19th October 2016 Mr Johnson, the appellant, was born in Jamaica in 1985 and moved to the UK aged four. His parents were not married. His father was a British citizen but his mother was not. Under the laws then in force he did not acquire British citizenship at birth. He obtained indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 1992 but he did not apply for permanent citizenship, despite a scheme which had been in place since 1987 that would have allowed him to do so on proof of paternity. In 2006 the law was changed to accord citizenship to illegitimate children with at least one British parent but the change in the law was not retrospective and Mr Johnson could not take advantage of it. In 2008 Mr Johnson was convicted of manslaughter. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, the respondent, issued a deportation order, which Mr Johnson challenged. The High Court found in favour of Mr Johnson. The Secretary of State appealed and the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s decision. This appeal considered the circumstances in which the Human Rights Act 1998 can be applied to causative events which occurred prior to its coming into force, but which are alleged to have continuing effect and whether a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR can, and should be made, in respect of historic legislation (since repealed) which denied automatic British citizenship to illegitimate children with a British father and a non-British mother. The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal, finding that Mr Johnson’s liability to deportation by reason of the accident of his birth outside wedlock is unlawfully discriminatory, in breach of his Convention rights. The consequence is that the certificate granted by the Secretary of State will be quashed and Mr Johnson’s appeal against the decision to deport him will be certain to succeed. The court also makes a declaration that the statutory requirement that a person in Mr Johnson’s position must also be of good character in order to be granted British citizenship is incompatible with Convention rights, pursuant to section 4 HRA. Judgment: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...42-judgment.pdf</noindex> •Guidance: Litigation debt, UK Visas and Immigration, 20 October 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/litigation-debt</noindex> The Home Office has issued new guidance on what the Home Office should do when an applicant for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain owes a litigation debt to the Home Office. Litigation debt is a debt owed to the Home Office where the court or Tribunal has ordered another party to pay its legal costs. A power to refuse applications for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain on the basis of litigation debt was added to the Immigration Rules and applies to applications made on or after 6 April 2016. The rule may not be applied to any applications made before 6 April 2016. The guidance does not apply to protection claims, claims of EEA nationals and their family members who apply under EEA regulations or nationality cases. The document contains guidance on exercising discretion in an application before taking any decision to refuse, relevant factors to consider and evidence that may be requested. •Guidance: Appeal review: APL07, UK Visas and Immigration, 17 October 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...al-review-apl07</noindex> UK Visas and Immigration guidance for how it considers the grounds for appeal and supporting documents of an application. •Guidance: Unaccompanied asylum seeking children and leaving care: funding instructions, UK Visas and Immigration, 19 October 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...nt-instructions</noindex> Instructions to local authorities about funding for the support and care of former and unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). •Urgent Question & Answer in Parliament: Child Refugee Age Checks Today Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) asked the Urgent Question: To ask the Minister for Immigration if he will make a statement on what age checks are being carried out on child refugees to ensure they are children. The House of Commons Answer and ensuing debate is available here: <noindex>https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-...fugeesAgeChecks</noindex> The House of Lords repeated Answer and ensuing debate is here: <noindex>https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-10...fugeesAgeChecks</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
Главный Модератор fregat222 Опубликовано 24 октября, 2016 Главный Модератор Жалоба Опубликовано 24 октября, 2016 В Украине вступили в действие новые правила выезда за границу с детьми Государственная пограничная служба разъяснила новый порядок пересечения границы гражданами Украины, которые путешествуют с детьми. Соответствующие изменения к правилам пересечения границы гражданами Украины внесены постановлением Кабинета министров от 19.10.2016 №733. Об этом сообщает пресс-центр Госпогранслужбы. "Это касается усиления контроля в отношении выезда за границу граждан Украины, которые не достигли 16-летнего возраста. Отныне такие дети могут выезжать за границу в сопровождении одного из родителей без предоставления нотариально заверенного согласия другого исключительно при наличии в паспортном документе ребенка отметки о взятии на постоянный консульский учет в дипломатическом представительстве или консульском учреждении Украины за границей, а не временный консульский учет", - отмечается в сообщении. На постоянный консульский учет принимаются граждане Украины, которые постоянно проживают за рубежом. Новый порядок введен для предотвращения незаконного вывоза за границу детей с одним из родителей без разрешения второго. Порядок должен способствовать защите прав как детей, так и второго из родителей. ]]>Источник]]> Цитата Делай что должно и будь что будет Гарантированное получение статуса беженца, гражданство Украины/ПМЖ в Украине/еврейская и немецкая иммиграция и не только это информация о возможностей иммигрировать и эмигрировать
British Lawyer Опубликовано 25 октября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 25 октября, 2016 25-10-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Inquiry into the implications of Brexit for the Crown Dependencies, Justice Committee, House of Commons Select Committee, 21 October 2016: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...s-launch-16-17/</noindex> The Justice Committee launches an inquiry into the implications of Brexit for the Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). •Updated Home Office policy on reviewing cases when appeals are lodged. The current UK Visas and Immigration guidance for how it considers the grounds for appeal and supporting documents of an application: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...al-review-apl07</noindex> •The case is R (on the application of Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 56 The Supreme Court has decided that the historic failure of British nationality law to confer automatic citizenship on a child born out of wedlock was discriminatory, it has continuing consequences which breached a person’s human rights in a discriminatory way and that denying such a person British citizenship now is unlawful should they request it. The fact of the person’s later criminal offending was not relevant because the injustice had occurred at birth. •Brexit: EU Citizens House of Lords Question asked by Lord Dubs: "To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assurances they can give to European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom, and British citizens living in other European Union countries, regarding their position following the negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union." <noindex>https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-10...rexitEUCitizens</noindex> •Migration Advisory Committee: annual report, 2015 to 2016, 25 October 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...rt-2015-to-2016</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 1 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 1 ноября, 2016 01-11-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Commons Select Scottish Affairs Committee publishes the UK Government’s response to the post-study work schemes report (28 October 2016) Chair of the Committee, Pete Wishart expressed disappointment that vocal support from representatives of academia, business, industry, trade unions and the Scottish Government had had no noticeable impact on the direction of policy. The Committee's report highlighted the negative impact of the closure of the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) visa in 2012, making Scotland less attractive for overseas students and removing employers' easy access to a pool of highly-skilled workers. The Committee set out a number of ways in which the UK Government could improve post-study work options for international students attending Scottish universities, and recommended that the Migration Advisory Commission review the current route for skilled non-EU students to stay in the UK to work for a set period of time. <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...response-16-17/</noindex> •New Home Office guidance published on 'partnership working’ with police or other agencies (27 October 2016) The new ‘partnership working’ guidance (first published 27th October 2016) instructs Immigration Enforcement in the procedures for working with the police or other agencies. With regard to working with other agencies, it details procedures for ‘common multi-agency visit types’, namely · Licensing Act visits · ‘Beds in sheds’ (this term relates to property owners using the outbuildings of residential properties as dwellings, in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Housing Act 2004) · Trading Standards visits · HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) · Street homelessness operations It emphasizes · the need to establish the legal basis for the Immigration Compliance and Enforcement team to enter premises and details the powers of entry available. · the misconception that Home Office staff can enter premises under section 179 of the Licensing Act 2003 as ’authorised persons’ (page 11). · In partner work there must be no ambiguity as to who is the lead agency for the operation (page 8). · any situation likely to attract media attention must be brought to the attention of the deputy director and press office (page 8). <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...workingv1.0.pdf</noindex> •Britain's Immigration Offer to Europe: How could a preferential system work? British Future, 31 October 2016: <noindex>http://www.britishfuture.org/publication/b...ffer-to-europe/</noindex> British Future has published its report with its proposals for immigration post Brexit. British Future proposes a three-tiered system where ‘highly-skilled’ EU migrants retain their rights to free movement. The first tier would comprise a route that would enable the ‘brightest and best’ (as usual, no definition of ‘best’; as usual seems from context to mean richest) from any country to move to the UK. The second tier would consist of a reciprocal free movement route with an income or a skills threshold. The third tier is also a preferential system and would comprise sector-based quotas to fill low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs. Here EU nationals would be offered preferential access to set quotas of jobs. This appears to be a report that accepts, rather than challenges, post-Brexit discourse on migration. Nor does it challenge the notion that EU migrants should enjoy preferential treatment post-Brexit (as opposed to give primacy to other groups such as Commonwealth citizens or family members of British citizen). The report makes no mention of the evidence submitted to British Future or of the advisory committee for the report. It thus makes no claims to representing consensus but is rather the proposal from British Future. British Future has the advantage over others of having got its report out first and this may affect the extent to which it influences the debate. It has gone for a ‘whole systems’ approach in the report but this is not necessarily how its proposals will be received: experience suggests governments rarely adopt such reports lock stock and barrel but rather pick and choose from them. •The Immigration Act 2016 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2016 The Secretary of State has made a second commencement order bringing into force further provisions of the Immigration Act 2016: Gov.uk link: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/10...20161037_en.pdf</noindex> HEADLINES: The appeals provisions under sections 63 to 65 come into force on 01 December 2016. Section 63 is the ‘remove first appeal later’ provision which provides the power to certify human rights claims not involving asylum or protection issues if it would not breach the applicant’s human rights to do so, with the effect that the appeal may only be brought from outside the UK. The power to cancel 3C leave under section 62 also comes into force on 01 December 2016. This applies where an individual has failed to comply with a condition of their leave or used deception in seeking leave to remain. The new residential tenancy provisions under sections 39-41 come into force in England on 01 December 2016. These include the criminal offence of leasing premises to a person disqualified from renting and the new eviction powers. Further illegal working provisions come into force on 01 December 2016 also. These are the provisions related to private hire vehicles and to illegal working closure notices and compliance orders. Transitional provision is made in respect of these provisions so that those granted temporary admission or released from detention by an immigration officer do not commit an offence if they have permission to work while the immigration bail provisions are not yet in force. Section 54 and Schedule 8 come into force on 01 December 2016 date bringing into force provisions that allow for multiple entry search warrants except in Scotland where these are not permitted. Sections 77 to 84 (language requirements for public sector workers) come into force on 21 November 2016. These are all the provisions relating to the duty on public sector authorities to ensure that public sector workers in customer-facing roles within the UK have a command of spoken English (or in Wales, English or Welsh) to enable the effective performance of their role. The provisions on labour market enforcement undertakings, orders and supplementary provisions will all come into force on 25 November 2016. These provisions are aimed at tackling breaches of labour market legislation. The Government considered that the existing system of fines were not sufficient to deal with the kinds of serious or repeated offences seen so it has introduced provisions that work like an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) for employers. Once these provisions are in force, the whole chapter of Part 1 on the labour market will be in force. Section 25 which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice giving guidance to enforcing authorities about the exercise of their functions under sections 14 to 23 was brought into force on 12 July 2016, along with the provisions on the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, when the first commencement order made. •Transparency data: Country returns guide, UK Visas and Immigration, 31 October 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...y-returns-guide</noindex> - Guidance on returning immigration offenders to their country of origin. Recent case-law •MST and Others (national service – risk categories) Eritrea CG [2016] UKUT 00443 (IAC) Tribunals Service link: <noindex>https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/u...c/2016-ukut-443</noindex> The judgment in the above country guidance case on Eritrea has now been re-promulgated and published on the Tribunals Service website. The judgment refers to Upper Tribunal Judge HH Storey rather than Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Storey and the following text has been removed from the head note: Legal “Country guidance” is an established term denoting judicial guidance and adoption by the Home Office of terminology apt to confuse this important fact is to be deprecated. Otherwise, the text of the judgment is the same as that published on 10 October 2016. New country guidance on Eritrea MST and Others (national service – risk categories) Eritrea CG [2016] UKUT 00443 (IAC) 1. Although reconfirming parts of the country guidance given in MA (Draft evaders – illegal departures – risk) Eritrea CG [2007] UKAIT 00059 and MO (illegal exit – risk on return) Eritrea CG [2011] UKUT 00190 (IAC), this case replaces that with the following: 2. The Eritrean system of military/national service remains indefinite and since 2012 has expanded to include a people’s militia programme, which although not part of national service, constitutes military service. 3. The age limits for national service are likely to remain the same as stated in MO, namely 54 for men and 47 for women except that for children the limit is now likely to be 5 save for adolescents in the context of family reunification. For peoples’ militia the age limits are likely to be 60 for women and 70 for men. 4. The categories of lawful exit have not significantly changed since MO and are likely to be as follows: (i) Men aged over 54 (ii) Women aged over 47 (iii) Children aged under five (with some scope for adolescents in family reunification cases (iv) People exempt from national service on medical grounds (v) People travelling abroad for medical treatment (vi) People travelling abroad for studies or for a conference (vii) Business and sportsmen (viii) Former freedom fighters (Tegadelti) and their family members (ix) Authority representatives in leading positions and their family members 5. It continues to be the case (as in MO) that most Eritreans who have left Eritrea since 1991 have done so illegally. However, since there are viable, albeit still limited, categories of lawful exit especially for those of draft age for national service, the position remains as it was in MO, namely that a person whose asylum claim has not been found credible cannot be assumed to have left illegally. The position also remains nonetheless (as in MO) that if such a person is found to have left Eritrea on or after August/September 2008, it may be that inferences can be drawn from their health history or level of education or their skills profile as to whether legal exit on their part was feasible, provided that such inferences can be drawn in the light of adverse credibility findings. For these purposes a lengthy period performing national service is likely to enhance a person’s skill profile. 6. It remains the case (as in MO) that failed asylum seekers as such are not at risk of persecution or serious harm on return. 7. Notwithstanding that the round-ups (giffas) of suspected evaders/deserters, the “shoot to kill” policy and the targeting of relatives of evaders and deserters are now significantly less likely occurrences, it remains the case, subject to three limited exceptions set out in (iii) below, that if a person of or approaching draft age will be perceived on return as a draft evader or deserter, he or she will face a real risk of persecution, serious harm or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 or 4 of the ECHR. (i) A person who is likely to be perceived as a deserter/evader will not be able to avoid exposure to such real risk merely by showing they have paid (or are willing to pay) the diaspora tax and/have signed (or are willing to sign) the letter of regret. (ii) Even if such a person may avoid punishment in the form of detention and ill-treatment it is likely that he or she will be assigned to perform (further) national service, which, is likely to amount to treatment contrary to Articles 3 and 4 of the ECHR unless he or she falls within one or more of the three limited exceptions set out immediately below in (iii). (iii) It remains the case (as in MO) that there are persons likely not to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm notwithstanding that they will be perceived on return as draft evaders and deserters, namely: (1) persons whom the regime’s military and political leadership perceives as having given them valuable service (either in Eritrea or abroad); (2) persons who are trusted family members of, or are themselves part of, the regime’s military or political leadership. A further possible exception, requiring a more case specific analysis is (3) persons (and their children born afterwards) who fled (what later became the territory of) Eritrea during the War of Independence. 8. Notwithstanding that many Eritreans are effectively reservists having been discharged/released from national service and unlikely to face recall, it remains unlikely that they will have received or be able to receive official confirmation of completion of national service. Thus it remains the case, as in MO that “(iv) The general position adopted in MA, that a person of or approaching draft and not medically unfit who is accepted as having left Eritrea illegally is reasonably likely to be regarded with serious hostility on return, is reconfirmed, subject to limited exceptions…” 9. A person liable to perform service in the people’s militia and who is assessed to have left Eritrea illegally, is not likely on return to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm. 10. Accordingly, a person whose asylum claim has not been found credible, but who is able to satisfy a decision-maker (i) that he or she left illegally, and (ii) that he or she is of or approaching draft age, is likely to be perceived on return as a draft evader or deserter from national service and as a result face a real risk of persecution or serious harm. 11. While likely to be a rare case, it is possible that a person who has exited lawfully may on forcible return face having to resume or commence national service. In such a case there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm by virtue of such service constituting forced labour contrary to Article 4(2) and Article 3 of the ECHR. 12. Where it is specified above that there is a real risk of persecution in the context of performance of military/national service, it is highly likely that it will be persecution for a Convention reason based on imputed political opinion. •Asylum support rates challenges: R (Ghulam & Ors) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 2639 (Admin) (24 October 2016) Ghulam & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2016] EWHC 2639 (Admin) (24 October 2016) <noindex>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2639.html</noindex> Judgment of Flaux, J in the High Court dismissing three conjoined judicial review challenges to decisions of the Secretary of State setting asylum support rates. These included the reviews of asylum support rates for single adults in August 2014 and April 2015 following the Refugee Action case and the review of asylum support rates for families with children in July 2015 which led to a significant cut in the level of support to families. The applicants were a single adult, a lone mother with three children and a mother with a disabled child, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 3 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 3 ноября, 2016 03-11-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation</noindex>. “We can help you” •According to the UK BA, from next week the UK BA letter accompanying permanent residence documentation will confirm the date on which the applicant is deemed to have acquired permanent residence, based on the information provided with their application. The UK BA is also amending the EEA (PR) guidance notes to make it clear that applicants applying for permanent residence documentation can provide evidence for historical periods of qualifying residence. The new version of the guidance notes will be published shortly •Settlement visa applications submitted in Russia - change to guidance, UK Visas and Immigration, October 2016 UPDATED 2 November 2016. In brief: supporting documents for applications should now be sent to Sheffield : <noindex>https://static.tlscontact.com/media/ru/mow/uk/settle_en.pdf</noindex> •High Court ruling on Article 50: UK Government cannot withdraw from the EU without the involvement of Parliament (03 November 2016) R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) Case No. CO/3809/2016 and CO/3281/2016 Today the High Court has ruled that the Government cannot withdraw from the EU without the involvement of Parliament. The Government is expected to appeal the decision. Summary: <noindex>https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/upl...eu-20161103.pdf</noindex> Judgment: <noindex>https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/upl...eu-20161103.pdf</noindex> The Question The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any views about the merits of leaving the European union: this is a political issue. Conclusion The Court holds that the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union. •Written Statement in Parliament: Safeguarding of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children (01 November 2016), Safeguarding Written statement - HCWS232, Made by: Edward Timpson (The Minister of State for Vulnerable Children and Families) •New EEA Regulations published, 3 November 2016 The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052 Link: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1052/contents/made</noindex> The Government has today published new EEA regulations. Regulation 1(2) states when these will come into force: 1(2) These Regulations come into force— (a) for the purposes of this regulation, regulation 44 and Schedule 5 (transitory provisions), on 25th November 2016; ( for all other purposes, on 1st February 2017. <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/publicat...6-11-01/HCWS232</noindex> •Updated Detention Services Order: Care and management of pregnant women in detention <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...en-in-detention</noindex> The Home Office has issued a final and updated version of Detention Services Order DSO 05/2016 on the care and management of pregnant women in detention, published 01 November 2016. It replaces DSO 02/2013 on pregnant women and supplements DSO 06/2016 on women in the detention estate. The Detention Services Order had been issued in draft after the limitation on the detention of pregnant women under section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 came into force. It was implemented on an interim basis whilst the Home Office consulted on its text ILPA submitted comments on the draft DSO on 11 August 2016. •New UKVI guidance: arranging removals for officers dealing with immigration enforcement matters within the UK (03 November 2016) This is guidance for Immigration Enforcement officers on how to prepare and arrange for a single person or a family group to be removed from the UK. It also contains information on decisions to separate family members as a consequence of detention or removal. <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...rns-preparation</noindex> •Work and Pensions Committee, House of Commons Select Committee inquiry into Department for Work and Pensions' policies and processes in relation to recognised victims of modern slavery and to assess potential changes in policy after Brexit, 1 November 2016: <noindex>https://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...-slavery-16-17/</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 7 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 7 ноября, 2016 07-11-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre, <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> “We can help you” •Tiers 2 and 5 of the points-based system: sponsorship – priority service, Home Office, 2 November 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ervice-v1_0.pdf</noindex> Although the priority service was announced a couple of months ago by the Home Office as an alternative to A rated sponsors paying £25,000 for the premium service. The guidance doesn’t say how much the new priority service will be or how sponsors will pay. The priority service will only allow A rated sponsors to request the following on an expedited basis: • change authorisation officer; • add a new level 1 user; • add or renew the allocation of certificates of sponsorship •Chapter 60 Enforcement Instructions and Guidance: Judicial Reviews and Injunctions updated by Home Office 31 October 2016 Guidance link: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...pter60_v_13.pdf</noindex> The new version of Chapter 60 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance was published by the Home Office on Monday, 31 October 2016. Issuing a claim for judicial review will not act as a barrier to removal in certain cases and an injunction will be needed – see section 6. The amended guidance also extends the use of limited notice of removal – see section 2.3. •Home Office response to Committee's query on ‘Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2016’ (04 November 2016) The Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments' twelfth report contains the following memorandum from the Home Office: <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/j...idTextAnchor047</noindex> •Lords Parliamentary Debate on Brexit: Impact on Universities and Scientific Research (03 November 2016) Moved by Lord Soley: That this House takes note of the potential impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on funding for universities and scientific research. <noindex>https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-11...entificResearch</noindex> •(No. 1060) Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Termination of Residential Tenancy Agreements) (Guidance etc.) Regulations 2016 No. 1060 laid before Parliament (04 November 2016) This statutory instrument is subject to negative resolution and was •made on the 2nd November 2016 •laid before Parliament 4th November 2016 •comes into force on 1st December 2016. <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1060/made/data.pdf</noindex> •Notice of Eviction and End of Tenancy wording Right to Rent, The Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Termination of Residential Tenancy Agreements) (Guidance etc.) Regulations 2016, 2 November 2016: <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1060/made</noindex> This prescribes the form of notice that landlords will need to use to end a tenancy and to pursue eviction without a court order under the new right to rent provisions that will be in force from 1st December. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 10 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 10 ноября, 2016 10-11-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you - Вы можем Вам помочь <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - ENGLISH <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> - ПО-РУССКИ •According to the UK BA, a long term visitor visa holder would be able to use his/her long term visitor visa for private medical treatment. Following simplification of the visitor routes of entry from the 24th April 2015, a visitor (other than a transit visitor or an Approved Destination Status visitor) may carry out any of the visitor permitted activities set out in Appendix 3 to Appendix V of the UK Immigration Rules without the need to apply for more than one visa •The UK BA Section 3 Leave Guidance (version April 2016) apparently has an error in it, asserting that section 3C leave is not restored where the certification under the Section 94 or the Section 94B or the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) is withdrawn. •Draft Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2016 laid before Parliament (7 November 2016) The Immigration Act 2016 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2016 brought into force section 45 and Schedule 7 of the Act on current bank accounts for the purpose of making subordinate legislation only. The draft Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2016 were laid before parliament on 7 November. They indicate they will come into force on 31 October 2017. This reflects the indication given by the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd MP, in her speech to the Conservative Party conference that the new Immigration Act 2016 provisions would be applied by banks from autumn 2017 : <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2016/9...11151150_en.pdf</noindex> •EU scrutiny Committee: 17th Report - Documents considered by the Committee on 2 November 2016 From the Home Office: Implementing the EU-Turkey agreement on migration <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../71-xv/7102.htm</noindex> The EU Scrutiny Committee considers the European Commission’s third Communication reviewing the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement and the Home Office memorandum in response. The Committee had recommended following both the first and second Communications that the issues were debated in parliament and restates this with some frustration: 13.4 [...] We consider that as a result of the Government’s delaying tactics the accumulation of relevant documents is such that a debate encompassing all of them would do justice to none of them. 13.5 We note that the Government has committed to make time available for a series of general debates on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. We share the Commission’s view that migration is likely to remain “one of the defining issues for Europe” for decades to come. It is imperative that the debates promised by the Government address the basis for future cooperation between the EU and the UK on migration. As recent events in Calais demonstrate, the asylum policies and systems in place in other Member States will have an important bearing on the flow of asylum seekers and irregular migrants seeking to enter the UK, not only while the UK remains a member of the EU but also once it has left. 13.6 Whilst it is clear that important questions remain about the sustainability of the EU-Turkey Statement and the way in which it is being implemented, as well as the impact of high levels of irregular migration and secondary movements between Member States on the functioning of the Schengen free movement area, we recognise that the Government’s ability to influence developments in an area of policy in which the UK, even while it remains in the EU, does not participate fully is likely to be diminished in light of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The Committee also reminds the Minister that he has yet to provide information on the Government’s response to recommendations made by the UK’s Anti-Slavery Commissioner (Kevin Hyland), following his visits to hotspots in Greece and Italy earlier this year, to ensure appropriate protection for the most vulnerable migrants (especially unaccompanied children) and to reduce the risk of further trafficking and disappearances. It asks the Minister as a matter of urgency, to explain which recommendations the Government intends to take forward and which, if any, it intends to reject; and indicate how much resource the UK intends to dedicate to implementing the Commissioner’s recommendations and the timescale envisaged. The Committee has completed its scrutiny on this document but will draw it to the attention of the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee on Exiting the EU. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 14 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 14 ноября, 2016 14-11-2016 UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you - Вы можем Вам помочь <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - ENGLISH <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> - ПО-РУССКИ •According to the UK BA, the current success rate with the EEA appeal is around 44% •Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Second Report of session 2016/17 on Courts and Tribunals Fees (10th November 2016) <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons...2016-17-web.pdf</noindex> The Justice Committee criticised the fee increase in the Immigration and Asylum Chambers prior to the government publishing its review of the impact of implementation of employment tribunal fees. The government responded it believes that the proposals for fees in the Immigration and Asylum Chambers are not directly comparable with the position in the Employment Tribunals. The Committee also recommended the application of the standard courts and tribunals fee remission system to the Immigration and Asylum Chambers should be reviewed. In response the government reiterated its plan to implement the policy, highlighting that it is also extending the fee waiver and remissions policy, so that those who are in receipt of a Home Office fee waiver on the grounds of destitution will also have their tribunal fee waived. The government has decided not to extend HMCTS’s standard fee remission scheme to proceedings in the Immigration and Asylum Chambers in view of the administrative difficulties it raises. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 15 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 15 ноября, 2016 15-11-2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you - Вы можем Вам помочь <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - ENGLISH <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> - ПО-РУССКИ •Guidance: Apply to become a permit-free art or music festival, UK Visas and Immigration, 15 November 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-free-festivals</noindex> This guidance provides details on how individuals who are hosting festivals can apply to get on the list of permit-free festivals. •Guidance: Detention Rule 35 process, UK Visas and Immigration, 15 November 2016: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...rule-35-process</noindex> Detention services order 09/2016 on reports submitted under Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. •House of Commons Library Briefing: Brexit: Article 50 TEU and the EU Court (14 November 2016) <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7763</noindex> Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 17 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 17 ноября, 2016 17 November 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you - Вы можем Вам помочь <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - ENGLISH <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> - ПО-РУССКИ Recent case-law Supreme Court Judgments on Deportation Appeals (16 November 2016 •Makhlouf (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent) (Northern Ireland) UKSC 2015/0092 On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland This is an appeal against an order for the deportation of a foreign criminal who has children who are citizens of and resident in the United Kingdom. The Tunisian Appellant married a UK national in 1996 and had a daughter in 1997. He entered the UK in 1997 and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1999. He and his wife separated and he remained in the UK. In 2006, his then partner gave birth to their son. In 2005 the Appellant pleaded guilty to offences of assault causing GBH under s.20 of the OAPA 1861 and possession of an offensive weapon, relating to an incident in 2003 for which he received a sentence of 39 months imprisonment. He was not required to go back to prison due to time served on remand. He was subsequently convicted of a number of other less serious offences. He has not seen his daughter since 2003 and an application for contact was dismissed by the court in 2008. He has not seen his son since 2010 and his application for contact was dismissed by the court in 2011. He has been unable to work since 2006/2007 following a serious assault. The Secretary of State made a deportation order against the Appellant in October 2012 on the basis of his conviction in 2005 and rejected his claim that this would infringe his rights under Article 8 ECHR. His children were not consulted before the decision to deport him was taken. The issue in this case was whether the Respondent failed to properly consider the Article 8 rights and best interests of the Appellant's children, and if so whether that meant the decision to deport the Appellant was not "in accordance with the law" and proportionate. Further, whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "public interest" in Section 3(5)(a) and Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 and Article 8(2) ECHR and of the proportionality of deporting the Appellant under Article 8(2) and failed to conduct a proper assessment of all relevant factors and in particular to give sufficient weight to the remarks of the sentencing judge; the fact that the appellant has not been convicted of a serious offence of violence since April 2003; and the delay of the respondent in deporting the appellant. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mr Makhlouf’s appeal. Press summary: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...ess-summary.pdf</noindex> Judgment: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...92-judgment.pdf</noindex> •Hesham Ali (Iraq) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) UKSC 2015/0126 On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) The issue is this appeal was whether immigration rules that are intended to set out the weight to be given to the public interest in the deportation of foreign national offenders are compatible with the balancing exercise required by the art.8 right to family life. The appellant is an Iraqi national who arrived in the UK in 2000 and made an asylum claim in 2002, which was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. He remained in the UK without leave and was fined for possession of Class A and C drugs in 2005. On 4 December 2006, he was convicted on two counts of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He has a longstanding relationship with his fiancée, who is a British citizen. The Home Secretary made an automatic deportation order against the appellant on 6 October 2010 under s.32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007. These proceedings challenge that order. The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Ali’s appeal by a majority of 6 to 1. Press summary: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...ess-summary.pdf</noindex> Judgment: <noindex>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...26-judgment.pdf</noindex> •Lords Select Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee 14th report HL Paper 67: European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1052), Immigration Rules changes & residential tenancies (17 November 2016) Today the Lords Select Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published its 14th Report of Session 2016-17, HL Paper 67- Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. <noindex>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...leg/67/6702.htm</noindex> Noteworthy topics covered are: •Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1052) •Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC667) •Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Termination of Residential Tenancy Agreements) (Guidance etc.) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1060) Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 19 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 19 ноября, 2016 ВАЖНЫЕ ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В ИММИГРАЦИОННЫХ ПРАВИЛАХ 19 November 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre We can help you - Вы можем Вам помочь <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - ENGLISH <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> - ПО-РУССКИ Immigration Rules change Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules: HC677 HEADLINES •28 day grace period for disregarding overstaying when making an application for further leave to remain abolished. See amended provision below. •Changes to Appendix FM, including new English language requirement at level A2 for further leave as a partner or parent after completing 30 months on a 5-year route to settlement under Appendix FM. •First phase of changes to Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (ICT) following the Migration Advisory Committee Review. •Further changes to Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 4, Tier 5 and provisions on overseas domestic workers. •Anticipated changes to refugee leave and refugee family reunion not included but there are new provisions on inadmissibility of asylum applications including with reference to first country of asylum and safe third country. •Mandatory refusal of limited or indefinite leave where an applicant is excluded under Article 1F from the Refugee Convention or under para 339D from humanitarian protection or is a danger to the security of the UK or, having been convicted by final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the UK. GENERAL Changes to periods within which applications for further leave to remain can be made by overstayers The 28-day grace period for the consideration of applications for further leave to remain where a person has overstayed will be abolished for applications made on or after 24 November 2016. Instead, an out-of-time application will not be refused only where the person applies within 14 days and has a good reason for applying out of time that was beyond their or their representative’s control. There is a 14-day ‘grace period’ where an application for leave has been refused; 3C leave has expired; a time limit for appeal or administrative review has expired; or an appeal or administrative review has concluded. This is to allow for a new application to be made. Periods of overstaying prior to 24 November 2016 to be disregarded for the purpose of applications for indefinite leave to remain based on continuous lawful residence will be governed by the old 28-day grace period, but overstaying after that date must not exceed 14 days. Changes relating to applications and validity The rules on making valid applications for leave to remain are redrafted. New paragraphs 34 to 34E (see paragraph 1.4 of HC667) set out the mandatory requirements for applications to be valid and some exceptions. There are also changes to the rules on how applications and administrative review applications may be submitted. Applications made before 24 November 2016 will be considered under the rules as at 23 November 2016. There is a new definition of a valid application at paragraph 34 of the Immigration Rules: one that is made on the specified form, all mandatory parts of which have been duly completed with the fee and health surcharge paid (unless a fee waiver applies). Proof of identity (normally a valid passport) must be submitted with the application, along with two valid passport photographs. Parents or guardians must sign to consent to an application from an under-18. Biometric information must be provided and where attendance in person is required, there must be such attendance. These requirements also apply when a person wishes to vary an application they have already submitted. The Secretary of State has discretion to treat an application as valid as long as the fee is paid, satisfactory evidence of identity provided and biometrics given (paragraph 34B). An application sent by Royal Mail is made on the date on which it is received by the Home Office (paragraph 34G); otherwise an application is made on the date on which it is received by the Home Office. These new definitions are essentially codifications and simplifications rather than radical changes to existing rules. They come into effect from 24 November 2016 for applications submitted on or after that date. Changes to general grounds for refusal and suitability requirements Refusal of limited or indefinite leave to remain where an applicant is excluded under Article 1F from the Refugee Convention; under paragraph 339D from a grant of humanitarian protection; is a danger to the security of the UK; or having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the UK, is made mandatory rather than discretionary. Instead limited leave will be granted outside the Immigration Rules under the restricted leave policy for as long as human rights considerations prevent deportation or removal. Indefinite leave to remain will only be given on a discretionary basis outside the rules and pursuant to the restricted leave policy. Applications made before 24 November 2016 will be considered under the rules as at 23 November 2016. Changes to administrative review Paragraph AR2.4 is ‘clarified’ to ensure that reviewers may consider evidence that was not before the original decision maker in either of the two scenarios identified, not both, as drafted, to reflect the intention of this rule and how it is applied. The two scenarios are: •that the evidence is submitted to demonstrate that a case working error as defined in paragraph AR2.11 (a), ( or © has been made; and (henceforth ‘or’) •to demonstrate that the refusal of an application under paragraph 322(2) was a case working error and the applicant has not previously been served with a decision to refuse an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain; to revoke entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain; to cancel leave to enter or leave to remain; to curtail leave to enter or leave to remain; or remove them from the UK, with the effect of invalidating leave to enter or leave to remain, which relied on the same findings of facts. The rules are also amended to bring provisions on administrative review ,where leave to enter or remain as a visitor is cancelled at the border on the basis of a change in circumstances, in line with other leave to enter or remain applications. Additional evidence to rebut the finding of a change in circumstances may not be considered at administrative review. Applications made for administrative review before 24 November 2016 will be decided under the rules in force on 23 November 2016. FAMILY MIGRATION Changes to Appendix FM / Appendix FM-SE See above also on changes to 28-day grace period for overstayers submitting an application for leave to enter or remain. A new English language requirement at level A2 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is introduced for applicants for further leave in the UK as a partner or parent after completing 30 months in the UK on a five-year route to settlement under Appendix FM. The specified evidence requirements for meeting the English language requirements using an academic qualification are clarified also. These changes take effect from 1 May 2017. If, however, the expiry date of the applicant’s leave pre-dates 1 May 2017, the application will be decided in accordance with the Immigration Rules in force on 30 April 2017. There are changes to the provision on when an application will normally be refused on suitability grounds due to false representations or failure to disclose a material fact so that it applies where: “The applicant has made false representations or failed to disclose any material fact in a previous application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain or a variation of leave, or in a previous human rights claim; or did so in order to obtain from the Secretary of State or a third party a document required to support such an application or claim (whether or not the application was successful).” This will be applied to applications decided on or after 24 November 2016. The rules are amended to ensure that a child is only eligible to apply for entry clearance or leave to enter or remain under Appendix FM when their parent is applying for or has leave to under Appendix FM. This applies to applications decided on or after 24 November 2016. The provisions on minimum income thresholds are amended so that these have to be met in respect of any dependent child of the applicant’s parent’s partner as well as the applicant’s parent. This applies to applications made on or after 24 November 2016. Changes are made to the specified evidence required to demonstrate meeting the minimum income threshold. The rules provide that changes made to evidential requirements in this and the previous statement of changes (HC877 of March 2016) apply to all applications decided from 24 November 2016, not just those made on or after 6 April 2016. The level of outstanding debt to the NHS which will found a discretionary refusal of leave on grounds of suitability is reduced from £1000 to £500 for applications decided on or after 24 November 2016. Changes to Part 8 Family Members See also above on changes to 28-day grace period for overstayers submitting an application for leave to enter or remain. Changes are made to the transitional provisions to allow applications that do not meet the rules for leave to enter or remain or indefinite leave to enter or remain under Part 8 also to be considered under the children provisions of Appendix FM. This will be applied to applications decided on or after 24 November 2016. There is also a change in the documentary requirements for entry clearance applications involving an inter-country adoption. ECONOMIC MIGRATION The statement of changes implements the first of two phases of changes to Tier 2 of the points-based system that were announced by the Government on 24 March 2016 and makes further changes, both to Tier 2 and generally. Tier 2 Be aware that the time given to applicants and sponsors to respond to requests for further information in relation to genuineness assessments in both Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (Intra-company transfer)is being reduced from 28 calendar days to 10 working days. Tier 2 (General) Changes made following the Migration Advisory Committee review include: •Increased salary threshold for experienced workers of £25,000 (but not new entrants where the threshold is held at £20,800). Exemptions for nurses, medical radiographers, paramedics and secondary school teachers in mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, and Mandarin ending in July 2019. •As a transitional arrangement, the £25,000 threshold will not apply to workers sponsored in Tier 2 (General) before 24 November 2016, if they apply to extend their stay in the category. The Government intends to increase the threshold to £30,000 in April 2017; there will be no such transitional arrangement for workers sponsored in Tier 2 (General) between 24 November 2016 and April 2017 – they will need to satisfy the £30,000 threshold in any future application. •UK graduates who have returned overseas have been weighted more heavily in the monthly allocation rounds under the Tier 2 limit. Graduates who apply in the UK continue to be exempt from the limit. •Applicants sponsored in graduate training programmes may change occupation within the programme or at the end of the programme without their sponsor needing to carry out a further Resident Labour Market Test or for them to make a new application. In other changes to Tier 2 (General), from April 2017 sponsors can rely on a milkround that ended up to four years prior to assigning a certificate of sponsorship but only if the worker was offered the job within 6 months of that milkround taking place. Nurses are retained on the Shortage Occupation List but the rules are changed to require a Resident Labour Market Test to be carried out before a nurse is assigned a Certificate of Sponsorship. The rules on pre-registration nurses are also consolidated. Changes are made to switching from Tier 4 to Tier 2 to permit this only where the applicant studied at a UK recognised body or body in receipt of public funding as a higher education institution and to also prevent an applicant relying on a qualification obtained via supplementary study. The effect of the former change is to remove the route for those sponsored by an overseas higher education institution to undertake a short- term study abroad programme in the United Kingdom. It will also apply to those dependants of Tier 4 students permitted to switch into Tier 2. Tier 2 (Intra- Company Transfer) Changes made following the Migration Advisory Committee review include: •The salary for short term ICT applicants has been increased to £30,000 for new applicants. A transitional arrangement applies for those already in the UK under the short term route. •The closure of the Skills Transfer sub-category to new applicants. •Changes to the Graduate Trainee sub-category. The salary threshold has been reduced from £24,800 to £23,000 and the number of places a sponsor can use has been increased from five to 20 per year. In addition, a redundant paragraph relating to time spent working in the UK for the Sponsor is being removed, and amendments are being made to the evidential requirements to more accurately reflect the criteria relating to previous working for a business linked to the Sponsor. Other changes OTHER CHANGES TO THE POINTS-BASED SYSTEM Evidential flexibility The period of time within which the caseworker may get in touch with the applicant or representative and request the corrected document within is changed from seven to 10 working days with effect from 24 November 2016 (see new rule 34B). Circumstances in which this will be done are specified, for example where a document is missing it must be at the beginning of the sequence not at the beginning or end. Evidence relating to English language requirements Appendix B is amended to provide that an applicant must provide official documentation produced by UK NARIC to confirm any assessment of their degree by UK NARIC. Tier 1 (entrepreneur) Changes to evidence requirements, including to provide that an accountant cannot sign off his/her own accounts or funding evidence and around job creation and evidence to demonstrate Pay As You Earn reporting to HM Revenue and Customs. Tier 1 (exceptional talent) Providing that applications for endorsements can come from the Isle of Man (which has its own immigration rules). Changes as to evidence. Tier 4 (students) Changes to the definition of an approved qualification. Changes as to evidence. A correction to remove the need for academic progression in cases where, for example, the person has taken a year as a student union sabbatical officer. To allow those studying either an integrated Masters course or an integrated Masters and PhD programme, who are progressing from the lower to higher level qualification to move to a higher level course, and extend their leave from within the UK. To require a Doctorate Extension Scheme application to demonstrate two months of maintenance funds to support themselves until their salaried work starts. Tier 5 (youth mobility scheme and temporary worker categories) Setting out the quota’s for youth mobility schemes for 2017. To confer deemed sponsorship status upon Taiwan. In the temporary worker category A-Rated Tier 5 sponsors are given the option of certifying maintenance in respect of a Tier 5 applicants and dependants. Minor, consequential, changes to government-authorized exchange schemes. See also below re domestic workers. Family members Provision is made for family members, including of those in the UK under the Points-based system, who are studying to be required to have Academic Technology Approval Scheme certificates under Part 15 of the Rules. Overseas domestic workers (Tier 5 and paragraph 159A to 159H) The Immigration Rules on overseas domestic workers are also amended. In April 2016, the government gave domestic workers in private households and private servants in diplomatic households a right to change employer. They were however only allowed to stay with the new employer for a maximum of six months, or until their leave ends, whichever is the shorter, so for most workers in diplomatic households opting to change employer meant taking a cut in the time for which they could stay in the UK. From 24 November 2016 that is changing and domestic workers in diplomatic households who change employer will be able to work for the rest of their period of leave. The rules do not state whether they have to continue in a diplomatic household to benefit from this (it is understood that while the maximum period of leave has been six months they have not been confined to diplomatic households), The Immigration Rules are amended with effect from 24 November 2016 to remove the upper age limit (65) currently applied to those applying in the overseas domestic worker in private household category. From 24 November, when (pre April 2012) domestic workers are applying for more leave, instead of showing that they are required for ‘full-time’ work domestic workers must show that they are required to work a 30 hour week. This is unlikely to b e a problem for most domestic workers. REFUGEES / ASYLUM The anticipated changes to periods of refugee leave and refugee family reunion have not been implemented. There appears to be a placeholder at paragraph 11.116 of HC667 which would indicate that those changes were due to be added in and have been removed. A victory, therefore, but one that may be only temporary. There are significant changes at 11.123 of the statement of changes introducing new paragraphs 345A – 345E. An asylum claim will be declared inadmissible where the following conditions are met: •another member State has recognized the person as a refugee; •a country which is not a member State is considered to be a first country of asylum for the applicant, according to the requirements of paragraph 345B; •a country which is not a member State is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, according to the requirements of paragraphs 345C and 345D; •the applicant is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on other grounds and as a result of this has been granted a status equivalent to the rights and benefits of refugee status; • the applicant is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on some other grounds which protect them against refoulement pending the outcome of a procedure for determining their status in accordance with (iii) above. The content of the rules on first country of asylum and safe third country appear at first glance to reflect articles 26 and 27 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, with added detail on how the connection to the safe third country will be determined. The rule change signals increased consideration of the safe third country option in asylum applications, beyond the Dublin III regulation. Para 345A (iv) appears aimed at preventing those granted humanitarian protection from having their claims for refugee protection being considered. Changes are made to where Refugee Status or Humanitarian Protection is revoked or ceases to apply to allow for exclusion where there are ‘serious reasons for considering’ that a person has committed a serious crime in addition to where they have committed a crime prior to their admission to the UK. ‘Serious reasons considering’ reflects language used by UNHCR but we wait to see how the provision is applied. The changes relating to the first country of asylum / safe third country apply to all asylum claims made on or after 24 November 2016. All the other changes apply to decisions made on or after 24 November 2016. See also above on general grounds for refusal where Article 1F or Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention apply. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 22 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 22 ноября, 2016 22 November 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre •ENGLISH - We can help you - <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> •ПО-РУССКИ - Вы можем Вам помочь - <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> Recent EU related case-law •El Ghatet v. Switzerland (no. 56971/10) [Article 8], 8 November 2016 This case concerns the refusal of the Swiss authorities to permit the family reunification of an Egyptian son with his father, who has Egyptian and Swiss nationality •CJEU: Case C-528/15 Al Chodor, Opinion of Advocate-General H. Saugmandsgaard ØE The case relates to an Iraqi male and his two minor children who were detained by the Czech police in May 2015 pending their transfer to Hungary pursuant to the Dublin Regulation and Article 129(1) of the Czech Aliens Act. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
British Lawyer Опубликовано 24 ноября, 2016 Автор Жалоба Опубликовано 24 ноября, 2016 24 November 2016 - UK & EEA Immigration Law Updates from the Legal Centre Legal Centre’s Services at a glance - Вкраце об услугах Legal Centre: - Consultation with the top category Immigration Advocate: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html</noindex> - Консультация с иммиграционным адвокатом всшей категории: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Konsultacija-s-Advokatom.html</noindex> - Application verification service by the top category Immigration Advocate: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Immigration-Applica...on-Service.html</noindex> - Услуга проверки заявлений иммиграционным адвокатом высшей категории : <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/proverka-zayavleniy.html</noindex> - General supervision (de-facto representation) by the top category Immigration Advocate : <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Genera-supervision.html</noindex> Общее сопровождение дела адовкатом высшей категории : <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/Obshee-soprovozdenie.html</noindex> - Full representation : <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/</noindex> – Полное сопровождение: <noindex>https://legalcentre.org/language.php?lang=ru</noindex> THE NEWS •Updated Guidance on Right of Appeals under Immigration Act 2014 (21 November 2016) <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...Appeal-v4_0.pdf</noindex> Guidance on when there is a right of appeal against decisions in immigration cases, including mechanisms to prevent repeat rights of appeal and prevent delay from appeals against unfounded claims. The guidance has been amended to include a list of applications that cannot be made during the currency of leave under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (namely are not human rights claims), and a fuller EEA appeals guidance section has been added which includes reference to the case of Sala. •Internal guidance for Tribunal caseworkers considering remission applications. Unpublished. 21 November 2016: <noindex>http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resources.php/32705...ished.-21-novem</noindex> •UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) upholds complaint of EEA family permit applicant wrongly told by UKVI to pay for priority visa service, 24 November 2016 UKVI upholds complaint and refunds fee of applicant who was told by Visa Application Centre staff to pay for the priority visa service to have his application processed on a priority basis when this should not have been necessary because EEA family permit applications are required to be issued as soon as possible under Regulation 12(4) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Цитата Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer
