Перейти к содержанию



British Lawyer

Важные судебные решения и новости для иммигрантов

Рекомендуемые сообщения

  • Главный Модератор

ВЕЛИКОБРИТАНИЯ НЕ БУДЕТ ОТМЕНЯТЬ ВИЗОВЫЙ РЕЖИМ ДЛЯ УКРАИНЦЕВ ПОСЛЕ ВЫХОДА ИЗ ЕС

 

Посол Великобритании Мелинда Симмонс заявляет, что Британия не будет отменять визовый режим для граждан Украины после выхода из Евросоюза, который произойдет сегодня в полночь.

Об этом посол сказала в эфире программы «Завтрак с 1+1». 

«Вопрос безвизового режима - это не политический вопрос, это вопрос безопасности границ, но безопасность границы - это причина того, почему Великобритания не принимала участие в Шенгенском соглашении, и эта политика не изменилась. После того, как мы выйдем из Евросоюза, визовый режим для украинцев будет продолжаться, то есть не будет изменений: если вы будете ехать в Великобританию из Украины, вам нужно будет получать визу», - заявила Симмонс.

При этом она отметила, что Великобритания не будет открывать в Украине визовый центр, и решение о выдаче виз украинцам будет приниматься в региональном визовом центре, расположенном в Варшаве.

Также Симмонс добавила, что, по статистике, 98% британских виз украинцы получают вовремя.

«Большинство этих заявок на визит проводят очень легко, без проблем, и мы будем говорить с визовым центром Великобритании, чтобы люди получали визы в срок», - отметила посол.

Как сообщалось, 30 января президент Владимир Зеленский подписал указ о временном введении безвизового режима для граждан Великобритании.

Безвизовый режим вводится на период с 31 января 2020 года до 30 января 2021 года. В ночь с 31 января на 1 февраля Великобритания официально перестанет быть членом Евросоюза.

 

Источник

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Главный Модератор

Британия вышла из состава Евросоюза

Сразу после Brexit в Соединенном Королевстве вступает в силу переходный период, рассчитанный до 31 декабря 2020 года.

 
Великобритания покинула состав Евросоюза, членом которого была на протяжении 47 лет.
 
Ровно в 23.00 31 января (1.00 по киевскому времени 1 февраля), спустя три с половиной года после референдума, на котором 51,89% британцев проголосовали за Brexit, Соединенное Королевство вышло из состава ЕС.
Как заявил в телеобращении к нации премьер-министр Борис Джонсон, без сдержек со стороны Евросоюза Великобритания сможет в полную силу проявить весь свой потенциал. 
"За последние 50 лет Евросоюз развился в том направлении, которое более не подходит этой стране. И такую оценку вы, британский народ, дали на избирательных участках", − подчеркнул он.
По мнению британского премьера, главной задачей правительства на данном этапе является объединение страны, расколотой разногласиями по теме Brexit, а также устранение перекосов в развитии различных регионов.
При этом Джонсон выразил надежду на продолжение конструктивного сотрудничества с Евросоюзом, членом которого королевство пробыло с 1973 года.
"Мы хотим, чтобы это стало началом новой эры дружественного сотрудничества между ЕС и полной сил Великобритании", − указал он.
Напомним, сразу после выхода Великобритании из Евросоюза вступил в силу переходный период, рассчитанный до 31 декабря 2020 года.
За это время стороны намерены согласовать все условия будущего сосуществования и взаимодействия, прежде всего попытаться заключить соглашение о свободной торговле.
 
 
Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Главный Модератор

ЕС официально объявил о введении новых правил выдачи виз

Изменений в визовой политике для стран, имеющих безвизовый режим с Евросоюзом, не будет

Европейский союз официально объявил о введении со 2 февраля новых правил выдачи виз для граждан третьих стран для пребывания на территории стран ЕС. Об этом сообщает РБК-Украина со ссылкой на сайт Европейской комиссии.

Однако отмечается, что никаких изменений в визовой политике для стран, имеющих безвизовый режим с Евросоюзом, не будет. В частности, новые правила упростят для законных посетителей процедуру запросов на визу для въезда в Европу, облегчат развитие туризма, спорта и бизнеса, и одновременно предоставят больше ресурсов для противодействия риска незаконной миграции и угрозам для внутренней безопасности.

 

Правила будут распространяться на граждан всех стран, требующих оформления виз для путешествий в ЕС - таких стран на сегодня насчитывается 105.

Новые правила предусматривают, что краткосрочные визы для граждан третьих стран необходимы для въезда в 22 страны ЕС, которые являются членами Шенгенской зоны. Такие правила распространяются на четыре ассоциированные с ЕС страны - Исландию, Лихтенштейн, Норвегию и Швейцарию. Краткосрочные визы позволяют путешествовать по всем странам ЕС продолжительностью до 90 дней в любой период в 180 дней.

По обновленным правилам, заявители могут подавать заявки на визу за шесть месяцев (9 месяцев для путешествий морским транспортом) до запланированного путешествия, вместо трех месяцев. Упрощена процедура получения многократных виз продолжительностью от 1 до 5 лет, для их получения заявители могут оформлять представления в электронном виде. Заявки на визы консульские учреждения ЕС должны рассматривать не более 15 суток, в отдельных случаях этот срок может увеличиваться до 45 суток.

 

Источник

ЕВРОСОЮЗ ОТКРЫЛ В ЛОНДОНЕ ДИПЛОМАТИЧЕСКОЕ ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛЬСТВО

 

После выхода Британии Европейский Союз открыл в Лондоне свое дипломатическое представительство. Об этом говорится в заявлении верховного представителя ЕС по иностранным делам Жозепа Борреля.

Представительство начало работу 1 февраля. Делегацию возглавил посол в Британии, португальский дипломат Жуан Вале де Алмейда.

"Дипмиссия находится в помещении бывшего представительства Европейской комиссии в Лондоне. Кроме стандартных дипломатических функций делегация Евросоюза будет "играть ключевую роль" в отслеживании выполнения соглашения о Brexit между Брюсселем и Лондоном. Кроме того, ей предстоит стоять на страже прав граждан стран ЕС в Соединенном Королевстве", - говорится в документе.

"Мы хотим построить новое амбициозное партнерство в области торгово-экономического сотрудничества, правоохранительной деятельности и уголовного судопроизводства, внешней политики, безопасности и обороны", - указано в заявлении Борреля.

Ранее сообщалось, что европейская дипмиссия в Лондоне также будет отвечать за Северную Ирландию.

Напомним, 31 января Великобритания покинула Евросоюз после 47 лет пребывания в объединении. С момента референдума, в рамках которого большинство жителей королевства одобрили выход из ЕС, прошло более трех с половиной лет.

 

Источник

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

03 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> More on the new Global Talent category immigration route

In brief, the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category is being re-branded.

There no longer will be a cap on how many people can benefit from the new route. Yet it is worth remembering that the cap (max - 2000 applicants per year) for Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) has never been reached so that seems to have been done more for show than anything else.

The Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) - historical background

By way of very brief background, the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category was designed to attract exceptionally talented individuals in the fields of science and medicine; engineering; humanities; digital technology and arts and culture. It was divided into two further sub-categories: Exceptional Talent, for those who are already leaders in their field, and Exceptional Promise, for those who have the potential to become leaders.

To be granted leave as a Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) migrant, a person must first be endorsed by an endorsing body with expertise on the particular topic (for example, applicants in the field of engineering must be endorsed by the Royal Academy of Engineering, while applicants in the field of arts and culture are endorsed by Arts Council England). Once they are endorsed, they can go on to apply for leave to enter or remain within three months.

Unlike most other routes, there is no English language or financial requirement. Those who have been endorsed just need to show that they do not fall foul of the general grounds for refusal to be granted leave on this route.

The differences between Exceptional Talent and Global Talent

Nothing substantially changes for those applying in the fields of digital technology and arts and culture. The only differences at this stage are purely semantic:

    - The Tech Nation (Tier 1 Exceptional Talent) application form is now called Tech National Global Talent application form.
    - Designated competent bodies are now called endorsing bodies
- When you have to submit a CV, you are now allowed to submit a CV on three sides of A4 (as opposed to the previous two-A4 CV)

For those applying in the fields of science and medicine, engineering and humanities, the route has been expanded. Under the existing Exceptional Talent system, researchers in academic, industry or government research institutions can apply:

    - Under the “normal” route, by showing that they met certain criteria such as being active researchers, having a PhD etc. Their respective endorsing bodies would then go on to consider whether to endorse them.
    - Under the “accelerated” route, meaning they would be automatically endorsed if:
        >They held a specific fellowship award (or held it within the 12 months directly prior to the date of application); or
        >They were appointed to eligible senior academic or research positions at UK higher education institutions or research institutes.

All of these routes are still available, but the statement of changes has introduced an additional "fast-track" route. This covers academics, researchers, scientists, research engineers or other skilled research technology/methodology specialists who have a grant or award worth £30,000 or more, covering a minimum period of two years.

UK Research and Innovation has a list of approved organisations, set out in Annex 2 of Appendix W, who can act as “endorsed funders” by employing or hosting the applicants. The applicant, in turn, must be directing a “unique research or innovation project” or be making “critical contributions to research”.

Quicker route to settlement

All applicants endorsed in the fields of science and medicine, engineering and humanities can apply for settlement after three years, regardless of whether they were granted leave under the Exceptional Promise criteria or the Exceptional Talent criteria.

Digital technology, arts and culture applicants endorsed under the Exceptional Promise criteria still need to wait five years to qualify for settlement. Those endorsed in these fields under the Exceptional Talent criteria can also apply for indefinite leave to remain after three years.

Absences for research purposes do not break continuity of residence

When applying for indefinite leave to remain, applicants must usually show that they have not broken the continuity of their residence in the UK by being out of the country for more than 180 days in any 12 months. But applicants endorsed in the fields of science and medicine, engineering and humanities (and their partners, too) can discount absences “linked to their grant of leave (such as a scientist undertaking research overseas)”.

All in all, this is positive news. The Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) route remains, in all but name, intact, while researchers get more options to move to or stay in the UK. It remains to be seen whether that will be sufficient to attract overseas talent to the UK.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

04 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Free movement continues past Brexit day, but only until the 31st December 2020

The UK is no longer a member of the European Union. Yet the Free Movement of EU nationals and their Family Members continues until at least  31 December 2020. Articles 126 and 127 of the Brexit divorce deal say:

    "There shall be a transition or implementation period, which shall… end on 31 December 2020… Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, Union law shall be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period."

The transition period during which free movement continues can be extended until either 31 December 2021 or 31 December 2022, but this must be agreed by 1 July 2020. The UK legislation that implements the divorce deal says that British ministers cannot agree to an extension, although that section could be repealed if the government changed its mind.

People who move to the UK during the transition period can also apply to stay on afterwards, using the EU Settlement Scheme. This means they must be living in the UK by 31 December 2020, with the deadline for applications being 30 June 2021.

Finally, European Temporary Leave to Remain is out the window. It was only relevant if there had been no Brexit deal, and there is a deal. The plan — a rather optimistic plan — is for a new immigration system to be up and running by 1 January 2021, under which all new European arrivals will be expected to apply for visas to live and work in the UK just as non-EU citizens do today.

You can get professional advice on any of the above issues from the Legal Centre 24/7, via https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html

>>> EU case law after Brexit

Case law, for those who are not lawyers, refers to the decisions of courts and tribunals interpreting and applying legislation and common law rules. It often clarifies the meaning or effect of legal provisions and is frequently used by lawyers to support a particular interpretation or application of the law. Such cases set precedents that become part of the law, meaning that the same issue does not need to be litigated over and over again.

The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets and applies EU law. Its judgments are binding on UK courts (and, despite its habitual reluctance, the UK government).

This will end on 31 December 2020. UK courts will not be bound by future Court of Justice decisions after IP completion day and will not generally be able to refer questions of EU law to that court.

UK courts “may have regard” to Court of Justice case law handed down after the end of transition if they want. The same goes for post-transition EU legislation. But they do not have to. It is essentially up to UK judges to decide if, and to what extent, certain provisions of EU law are to apply in the UK after Brexit.

So to know which new EU cases are relevant to UK immigration law, we will have to keep an eye on the UK case law. The EU cases will not be automatically relevant, as they are now.

If a helpful Court of Justice case is handed down, lawyers can highlight this and seek to persuade the UK court or tribunal to follow it; in the same way that a Scottish lawyer might highlight a non-binding decision of an English court with a view to having it followed in the Scottish courts (or vice versa).  

What about Court of Justice case law from before the end of transition? This will apply when interpreting retained EU law, unless the government decides that it should not. The 2020 Act contains controversial provisions allowing the government to pass regulations dictating to courts how and when to apply retained EU case law. It remains to be seen how frequently this “broad and constitutionally significant” power will be exercised, and what areas of the law the government will target.

Even in the absence of such regulations, the Supreme Court can depart from pre-Brexit case law if it wishes. This can be done in the same way that the Supreme Court can depart from its own case law i.e. when in the circumstances of the case “it would be right for it to do so”. For instance, when adhering to a previous decision “would produce serious anomalies” or other “plainly unsatisfactory” results; when there has been “a fundamental change in circumstances”; or when there is experience showing that the previous decision has resulted in “unforeseen serious injustice” (see Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [2010] UKSC 28 at paragraphs 24 to 26 for further details). The test for departing from Court of Justice case law after Brexit will be the same.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

06 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

 
 
The Home Office should release more details about a “cryptic” computer programme that scores visa applicants as high, medium and low risk, the immigration inspector has recommended.
 
David Bolt says that while applicants labelled high risk are not being automatically refused visas, officials should “demystify” the tool to allay concerns about racial bias.
 
Mr Bolt’s latest inspection report notes that the Home Office’s Visas and Citizenship directorate has been using a computerised streaming tool since 2015. It scores visa applicants as Red (high risk), Amber (medium risk) or Green (low risk).
 
The inspector says that among the factors that influence ratings are:
 

    "the nationality of the applicant, all immigration harm data collected globally by Immigration Enforcement over the preceding 12 months and attributable to particular cohorts of applicants, attributes from local risk profiles (for example, the applicant’s occupation, sponsor), and any other relevant information (such as age, reason for travel, travel history)."

 

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

07 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Shamima Begum loses statelessness argument against citizenship deprivation: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/shamima-begum-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department/

Despite Shamima Begum was born in the UK and was a British citizen, the Court found that she was also a citizen of Bangladesh and so would not be made stateless by being stripped of her British citizenship, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has held. The main SIAC judgment is Shamima Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SC/163/2019), while there is also a brief High Court judgment refusing a linked application for judicial review: [2020] EWHC 74 (Admin).

How many Shamima Begums are out there? Since 2002 the government has amended and re-amended nationality law to make deprivation of citizenship easier. Since 2010 there has been a sharp increase in use of this amended and expanded legal power. Some 120+ people have been deprived of the British citizenship...

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

12 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Unlawful “curfew” amounted to false imprisonment at common law, Supreme Court confirms: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/4.html

In a pointed reminder, perhaps, to those in government threatening to “update” the Human Rights Act, Lady Hale began her Supreme Court judgment in the case of R (Jalloh) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 4 thus:

    "The right to physical liberty was highly prized and protected by the common law long before the United Kingdom became party to the European Convention on Human Rights.".

The case concerned a claim made by Mr Jalloh – his name apparently misspelled in the court below as Jollah – that, as a result of a nightly curfew between 11pm and 7am imposed under immigration powers for over two years, he had been falsely imprisoned, and was entitled to damages as a result.

As summarised by Lady Hale:

    "This case is about the meaning of imprisonment at common law and whether it should, or should not, now be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty in article 5 of the ECHR.".

The Secretary of State had argued in the Court of Appeal that a curfew amounted to voluntary compliance with a request to remain in a particular physical place.

This argument was about as successful as the August 1991 "Putch" the USSR, and it was perhaps surprising to see the Secretary of State giving it another go.

In response to these rehashed arguments, the Supreme Court held that

    "24. The essence of imprisonment is being made to stay in a particular place by another person. The methods which might be used to keep a person there are many and various. They could be physical barriers, such as locks and bars. They could be physical people, such as guards who would physically prevent the person leaving if he tried to do so. They could also be threats, whether of force or of legal process…

    25. In this case there is no doubt that the defendant defined the place where the claimant was to stay between the hours of 11.00 pm and 7.00 am. There was no suggestion that he could go somewhere else during those hours without the defendant’s permission.".

Lady Hale betrayed some of the irritation on display in the courts below with the position taken by the Secretary of State:

    "The idea that the claimant was a free agent, able to come and go as he pleased, is completely unreal.".

An interesting feature of the judgment is the court’s treatment of the argument that the concept of imprisonment in the tort of false imprisonment should now be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 ECHR.

In response, the Supreme Court hold that the protections under the common law in cases such as this are greater than those afforded by human rights legislation.

Lady Hale characterised the state’s case on this point as:

    "asking this Court… not to develop the law but to make it take a retrograde step: to restrict the classic understanding of imprisonment at common law to the very different and much more nuanced concept of deprivation of liberty under the ECHR.".

The current incumbents of Downing Street have made clear their intention – via the Conservative manifesto – to “update” the Human Rights Act. The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, was heard this morning at the Institute for Government putting some flesh on this idea:

    "We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security, and effective government.".

What this decision indicates is that judges believe themselves able to protect the rights of individuals even without the aid of the Human Rights Act. Striding out purposefully from the pavilion to bat for the common law, the court holds that there is

    "every reason for the common law to continue to protect those whom is [sic] has protected for centuries against unlawful imprisonment.".

In what is likely to be one of her final Supreme Court judgments before retirement, it feels somehow right that Lady Hale is still sending shots across the bows of those who wrongly believe that human rights in this country began with the European Convention.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

14 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Surinder Singh route still requires genuine residence abroad: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/98.html

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that in order to benefit from the Surinder Singh principle, the family involved must have genuinely resided in another EU country and have created or fortified their family life there. In Kaur & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 98 it rejected the argument that, as a result of the Court of Justice decision in C-202/13 McCarthy No.2, anyone with a residence card from another member state is entitled to have their family come and live with them in the United Kingdom.

The facts of this case are not attractive. Mr Singh and Mrs Kaur had previously been married but divorced in 2004. The following year Mr Singh married a Polish national, obtained residence rights in the UK and became a British citizen in 2012. In 2013 he divorced his Polish wife and re-married Mrs Kaur. The couple went to live in Bulgaria with their children for 19 days in 2017 and Mr Singh obtained a residence permit. Then the family returned to the UK.

The couple sought to rely on the Surinder Singh principle to get residence rights for Mrs Kaur and their children. That principle allows EU citizens to obtain residence rights for family members in their home country if they move elsewhere in the EU and then return. The idea is to ensure that EU citizens are not discouraged from moving to other European countries.

To prevent abuse, the residence abroad must be genuine and in some way create or fortify family life.

At their initial appeal the First-tier Tribunal, perhaps unsurprisingly, found that the residence in Bulgaria was not genuine and there was no attempt to develop a family life there. Nonetheless, it allowed the appeal on the ground that, following the decision in McCarthy No.2, any EU citizen with a residence card must be permitted to enter with their family members.

The Upper Tribunal rejected that argument and the Court of Appeal was equally dismissive, ruling that McCarthy No. 2 was concerned with the procedural requirements on entry and not the substantive rules for residence rights:

    "There is in my judgment no basis for thinking that the CJEU in McCarthy (No. 2) intended to overrule the decision in O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel. It did not say so and the two cases were dealing with very different issues. O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel is referred to repeatedly in the McCarthy (No. 2) judgment (see [31], [34], [36], [54] and [62]), at one point being cited as “settled case law”, while at [62] the CJEU even referred to [60] of the judgment in O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel as confirming that residence permits issued on the basis of EU law declare and do not create rights. It added that “the fact remains that … the member states are, in principle, required to recognise a residence card issued under article 10 of Directive 2004/38, for the purposes of entry into their territory without a visa”, going on to say at [63] and [64] that the United Kingdom was entitled to verify the correctness of the data appearing on the Spanish residence permit in that case, although it could not impose further conditions on entry additional to those provided for by EU law."

Having reach that conclusion it was inevitable that the appeal would be dismissed as a result of the First-tier Tribunal’s findings that the period of residence in Bulgaria was not genuine.

>>> Can a Tier 2(General) migrant's working hours and salary be reduced despite the salary being above the relevant Code of Practice threhsold ?

Apparently, it cannot be reduced, according to the recent confirmation from the Home Office:

"If a migrant’s hours are reduced and hence their salary is reduced from the salary stated on the migrant's Certificate of Sponsorship, this would be a breach of the guidance, despite the migrant's earning in excess of the relevant Code of Practice".

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Главный Модератор

В Британии сократят число трудовых мигрантов

Новая иммиграционная система перекроет поток зарубежной низкоквалифицированной рабочей силы.

В Британии после Brexit будут требовать от трудовых мигрантов наличие трудового соглашения и хорошее знание английского языка. Об этом сообщает Reuters.

"Наша новая иммиграционная система перекроет поток зарубежной низкоквалифицированной рабочей силы", - заявила министр внутренних дел страны Прити Пател.

Она отметила, что со следующего года всем квалифицированным работникам нужно будет заработать достаточно "баллов" для работы в Великобритании. Им нужно будет разговаривать на английском языке, иметь стабильную работу и соответствовать требованиям зарплаты, поскольку она устанавливает правила пост-Brexit следующего года.

Некоторые оппозиционные политики утверждают, что ограничения на иммиграцию могут нанести ущерб государственным службам, таким как Национальная служба здравоохранения, которая в определенных районах возлагается на граждан ЕС, которые работают медсестрами и врачами.

В правительстве отметили, что будут добавлять дополнительные "баллы" тем, кто работает в секторах, где есть дефицит квалификаций.

 

Источник

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

19 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> EU citizens’ rights during the Brexit transition period: https://publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/eu-citizens-rights-during-the-transition-period/

The Public Law Project has a new briefing on EU citizens’ rights during the transition period. It says:

    "The main takeaway is that throughout the transition period, until 31 December 2020, almost all EU rules will continue to apply in the UK. The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union will continue until the end of the transition period. The four freedom: the freedoms of movement, services, capital and goods will continue until the end of the transition period. This means the UK will remain part of the customs union and [single] market until 31 December 2020 and British citizens will continue to be able to move freely around the EU and vice versa.

    More importantly EU nationals and their family members in the UK throughout the transition period should not be asked for proof of settled or pre-settled status to access healthcare, to rent property or to gain employment until 1 January 2021. An EU, EEA or Swiss passport or national identity card, or a residence card issued by the Home Office if someone is the family member of an EU, EEA or Swiss citizen, is sufficient to show that someone is lawfully in the UK and lawfully entitled to work and rent property until the end of the transition period.".

The Brexit transition period ends on 31 December 2020, unless extended by mutual agreement.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

19 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

Important Update:

>>> Government introduces a new immigration Points Based System (PBS): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-announces-new-uk-points-based-immigration-system

The government has released a few more details of what it calls a “points based system” for immigration to the UK after Brexit. To balance out the impending end of free movement of workers from the European Union, it would allow employers to sponsor migrant workers at lower salaries and skill levels than they can today, but with almost no provision for visas for people working in jobs that do not require A-level qualifications or higher.

Today’s proposals are solely to do with economic migration: family migration, asylum and students are unaffected. They are — very optimistically — supposed to come into effect from January 2021.

Skilled workers

The system would introduce a limited element of flexibility in sponsored work visas (currently branded Tier 2, although the language of “tiers” is virtually absent from the policy paper).

Sponsored workers would still need a job offer, English language skills and to be working at a certain skill level. That skill level would be reduced level 6 (degree) to level 3 (A-level), as was the case under the December 2018 white paper.

There will still be a minimum salary required for a work visa. The headline salary threshold has been reduced to £25,600, in line with the Migration Advisory Committee’s recent recommendation. But it will no longer be the absolute minimum: some workers earning between £20,480 and £25,600 would still be able to get a visa, but only if they are highly qualified or working in shortage jobs.

So in effect, the minimum salary for a UK work visa will be £20,480 for people working in jobs on the Shortage Occupation List or who have PhDs in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. It will be £23,040 for people with a PhD outside these subjects but nevertheless “relevant to the job”. For people with none of these characteristics, the minimum will be the headline £25,600.

What of the May-era white paper proposal to scrap the annual cap on these work visas? That does reappear, although the word used is “suspend” rather than “abolish”. The Resident Labour Market Test will also go.

The paper adds:

"...here will continue to be different arrangements for a small number of occupations where the salary threshold will be based on published pay scales. We will set the requirements for new entrants 30% lower than the rate for experienced workers in any occupation and only use the base salary (and not the allowances or pension contributions) to determine whether the salary threshold is met."

Lower-skilled workers

There will be no visa route for “lower-skilled” workers. This is a change from the 2018 white paper, which had grudgingly proposed a system of 12-month work visas for people who do not meet the skills threshold outlined above. This would have been “for a transitional period after the UK’s exit from the EU”.

The Johnson government no longer considers this necessary. This is primarily an ideological decision:

"UK businesses will need to adapt and adjust to the end of free movement, and we will not seek to recreate the outcomes from free movement within the points-based system. As such, it is important that employers move away from a reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, productivity, and wider investment in technology and automation."

In the meantime, businesses are told to make do with the existing pool of lower-skilled workers. This includes the millions of existing EU residents who have secured their right to remain post-Brexit under the EU Settlement Scheme. They will “provide employers with flexibility to meet labour market demands”.

The paper also says that “we have committed to expanding the pilot scheme for seasonal workers in agriculture which will be quadrupled in size to 10,000 places”. So there will be visas for strawberry pickers, but not for care home workers.

Highly skilled workers

The Migration Advisory Committee had also said that the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) visa could be made points-based. Unsurprisingly, since the government introduced unrelated reforms to Exceptional Talent just days later, this recommendation is not followed.

Instead, the paper proposes adding a new “unsponsored route” for the highly skilled alongside Exceptional Talent, with eligibility determined by personal characteristics.

"Example characteristics for which points could be awarded include academic qualifications, age and relevant work experience."

This would be much more Australia-style.

But in light of past experience — the MAC pointed out that the Home Office itself had come to loathe points-based visas like Tier 1 (General) — the paper says that “this route will take longer to implement”. It adds that “we want to learn from previous experience of similar schemes in the UK that have highlighted certain challenges. The scheme will need to be designed to make sure it adds value and does not undermine the skilled worker route or create opportunities for abuse”. It may be doubted whether it will ever come to pass.

What next?

The most telling line of this paper is that “The Home Office will publish further detail on the points-based system in due course”. Further detail is practically overdue already: these broad brush strokes must now be translated into detailed Immigration Rules and procedures in time for January 2021.

The Rules themselves are due for a general rewrite in line with Law Commission recommendations; the policy paper says that the government will be responding to these recommendations “shortly”.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

20 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

Court of Appeal lowers the bar for refusing tax discrepancy cases: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/157.html

In the case of Tahir Yaseen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 157, the Court of Appeal has reiterated that refusals on the ground of character or conduct require a balancing exercise, taking into account both positive and negative considerations.

The appellant, Mr Yaseen, made an application for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of his ten-year lawful residence in the UK. His application was refused on character grounds, due to a tax issue.

There are, however, two main differences between this case and others we have seen so far:

    - Mr Yaseen did not declare different incomes to HMRC and the Home Office. Rather, he did not submit three years worth of tax returns at all until after he submitted his application for indefinite leave and was called for an interview by the Home Office.
    - The Home Office refused the application relying not only on paragraph 322(5), but also on paragraph 276B(ii), which applies to indefinite leave to remain on the ground of ten years’ lawful residence in the UK.

Paragraph 276B(ii) ended up being the “winning” paragraph from the Home Office point of view. It reads:

    "276B. The requirements to be met by an applicant for indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence… are that:

    …

    (ii) having regard to the public interest there are no reasons why it would be undesirable for him to be given indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence, taking into account his:

    …

    (c) personal history, including character, conduct…

Paragraph 322(5) says:

    Grounds on which leave to remain and variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom should normally be refused…

    (5) the undesirability of permitting the person to remain… in the light of his conduct… character or dissociations…

It is difficult to see the difference between the two. But the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower tribunals and the Secretary of State that a refusal under paragraph 322(5) requires a finding of dishonesty, while a refusal under paragraph 276B doesn’t. Similarly, it agreed that the case law on tax discrepancies does not apply to refusals under paragraph 276B.

The court found, however, that before a refusal under paragraph 276B can be made, the decision-maker should conduct a balancing exercise taking into account both positive and negative factors relating to the applicant’s character. It decided that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to do so, and therefore remitted the case for the tribunal to reconsider.

As mentioned before, it is difficult to follow the logic behind setting two different tests for paragraphs which read so much alike. All it does, it seems, is lower the bar for the Home Office. Officials can now rely on paragraph 276B instead of 322(5), without having to make a finding of dishonesty.  

People applying under the long residence rules who know there may be issues with their taxes would be well advised to submit “counter” evidence of their good character.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Главный Модератор

Великобритания с марта начнет выдавать обновленные после Brexit паспорта

Введение синих паспортов будет поэтапным, и с середины 2020 года все новые паспорта будут синими и заменят свои бордовые предшественники.

Британцы со следующего месяца начнут получать паспорта синего цвета – это еще одно следствие выхода их страны из ЕС. Об этом сообщает "Европейская правда" со ссылкой на Sky News. Первый из паспортов нового образца, описанный правительством как возвращение к" культовому " дизайну, будет выпущен и выдан владельцу в начале марта.

Министр внутренних дел Прити Патель заявила: "выход из ЕС дал нам уникальную возможность восстановить нашу национальную идентичность и проложить новый путь в мире. С возвращением к культовому сине-золотому дизайну британский паспорт снова будет вплетен в нашу национальную идентичность, и я не могу дождаться, чтобы путешествовать с ним". Введение синих паспортов будет поэтапным, и с середины 2020 года все новые паспорта будут синими и заменят свои бордовые предшественники. Бывший премьер-министр Тереза Мэй объявила о возвращении синих паспортов в декабре 2017 года, назвав это "выражением нашей независимости и суверенитета". Британия перешла на бордовые паспорта в 1988 году в соответствии с рекомендациями ЕС, а некоторые сторонники Brexit использовали референдум за выход из блока как аргумент возврата к синему цвету, который впервые был использован в 1921 году. Кроме изменения цвета, новые паспорта Великобритании, выданные со следующего месяца, будут украшены цветочными эмблемами Англии, Северной Ирландии, Шотландии и Уэльса. Министерство внутренних дел хвастается, что это будет также "наиболее технологически продвинутый британский паспорт в истории", с множеством новых и обновленных функций безопасности. Документ включает в себя страницу данных из поликарбоната, содержит технологии, встроенные в документ для обеспечения безопасности персональных данных. Стандартные паспорта, как и раньше будут содержать 34 страницы, в то время как паспорта "Джамбо" для частых путешественников теперь будут содержать 54 страницы. Те, у кого есть действительные бордовые паспорта, могут продолжать использовать их для поездок до окончания срока их действия. С марта прошлого года бордовые паспорта стали выдавать без надписи "Европейский Союз" на лицевой стороне обложки.

Источник

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Главный Модератор

В Британии введут балльную систему для желающих получить рабочие визы

Британские власти ожидают, что новая система снизит общий уровень миграции и при этом «привлечет лучших со всего мира».

Правительство Великобритании объявило о подготовке масштабной иммиграционной реформы. Она, как утверждает кабинет премьер-министра Бориса Джонсона, направлена на то, чтобы привлечь в Британию высококвалифицированных специалистов и снизить число мигрантов с низкой квалификацией, которые работают за небольшие деньги. Об этом сообщает "Радио свобода". Новые правила, как ожидается, вступят в силу с 1 января 2021 года, после завершения переходного периода в отношениях с ЕС, что действует после выхода Британии из Евросоюза. Реформа непосредственно коснется граждан стран ЕС, особенно из Центральной и Восточной Европы. Сотни тысяч граждан таких стран, как Польша, Латвия, Литва работают в Британии. По новым правилам, их трудоустройства усложнится.

Реформа предполагает, что потенциальных мигрантов будут оценивать по балльной системе. Претенденты на получение долгосрочной рабочей визы должны будут доказать, что владеют английским языком, и иметь от работодателя предложение рабочего места с зарплатой не ниже 25600 фунтов в год – это больше, чем сейчас получают много работающих в Британии мигрантов. Дополнительные баллы начисляются за высокий уровень образования. Британские власти ожидают, что новая система «снизит общий уровень миграции» и при этом «привлечет лучших со всего мира». Граждане стран ЕС по новым правилам будут приравнены к гражданам других стран. Они, впрочем, будут иметь право жить в Британии без визы в течение шести месяцев подряд, но не смогут при этом работать. Оппозиция и ряд представителей бизнеса раскритиковали план правительства, отметив, что они могут ударить по британской экономике. В частности, до 20 процентов работников в промышленности и строительстве в Британии сейчас – граждане ЕС.

 

Источник

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

26 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>>  Permission should not be granted on the grounds as pleaded if there is, quite apart from the grounds, a reason why the appeal would fail: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2020/44.html

Another unsuccessful reported appeal to assist the Ukrainian refugee who claimed asylum in the UK years after entering illegally and first travelling through a number of safe EU countries (where that refugee could claim asylum in the first place).

This reported case that would perhaps have been more effective and appropriate as a passive-aggressive Post-it note stuck on the office kettle at Tribunal HQ:

    "Permission should not be granted on the grounds as pleaded if there is, quite apart from the grounds, a reason why the appeal would fail"

That’s the whole headnote. All of it. From OK (PTA; alternative findings) Ukraine [2020] UKUT 44 (IAC).

Notably the determination is written by one D O’Callaghan, formerly of Landmark Chambers and much missed at the immigration bar, who heard the case alongside President Lane. The determination is sound, naturally, but why on earth was it selected for reporting when so many other more interesting and important cases are not?

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

27 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>>  Adult step-children of EU citizens don’t qualify for family member residence cards: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/191.html

Ronnie Latayan came to the UK from the Philippines on a visit visa in 2004 and has been here ever since, through multiple unsuccessful applications for further leave to remain. Now 46, Ms Latayan lives with her mother, a naturalised British citizen with an Irish partner.

In Latayan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 191, the Court of Appeal heard Ms Latayan’s appeal against her latest Home Office refusal. She had applied for an EEA residence card, arguing that she was a dependent of her mother’s partner. Ms Latayan described him as her “stepfather” and said that he sent her money in the Philippines between 1998 and 2004.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether Ms Latayan came under Regulation 7(1)(b)(ii) of the EEA Regulations 2006. To do so, she would have to be a “direct descendant” of her stepfather.

Despite her not being his biological or adopted child, counsel for Ms Latayan made the “spirited argument” that a “de facto” or “real-world” parental relationship existed here. But Lord Justice Peter Jackson, giving several reasons, found otherwise:

    "a step-child of an EU citizen (meaning a child of a person who is in a relationship with an EU citizen, not being a marriage or a civil partnership) is not a direct descendant of the citizen within the meaning of the Regulations.

A second ground of appeal was rejected as “no more than a disagreement with the [First-Tier Tribunal’s] assessment of evidence”, and the appeal dismissed.

>>> Supreme Court: detention is unlawful if based on unlawful deportation order: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/7.html

The Supreme Court has found in the case of DN (Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 7 that the detention of a Rwandan man facing deportation was unlawful because the deportation order on which detention was based was itself unlawful. In this case the deportation order was unlawful because it was made under a piece of secondary legislation which was, unusually, subsequently declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal. DN (Rwanda) has wider application, enabling claims for damages for unlawful detention in other cases where a deportation order was unlawfully made.

 

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

28 February 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>>  Asylum backlog continues to rise: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets

The number of people with pending asylum cases has risen by almost 50% in just the last 12 months, new Home Office figures show.

Over 56,000 asylum seekers and their dependants were awaiting an initial decision or further review at the end of 2019, compared to 38,000 at the end of 2018. That represents a 47% increase year on year.

The number of people waiting just for an initial decision now stands at over 51,000. That figure has been rising steadily since the beginning of 2015, and has more than tripled over the period.

Even more troublingly, 2019 saw a 75% increase in the number of people waiting more than six months for an initial decision. There were 17,000 asylum seekers in that position in December 2018, rising to 29,000 in December 2019.

>>> Home Office brags about success of entrepreneur visa it abolished a year ago: https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/02/27/media-factsheet-immigration-statistics-february-2020/

Yet another hilarious bit of spin in the Home Office’s “fact sheet” on yesterday’s immigration statistics:

    "…the UK continues to be a desirable location for the brightest and best around the world…

    The number of highly skilled visas issued [in 2019] has increased by 7% to 5,664.

    The majority of these (59%) were to entrepreneurs, coming to start businesses in the UK"

It is true that 5,664 Tier 1 visas were issued in the calendar year 2019 (if you include dependants and not just main applicants). Of those, 3,342 (59%) were granted in the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category.

That’s right: the Home Office is lauding the success of a visa that it abolished in March 2019. Most of the 3,342 Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visas issued in 2019 came after the route closed to new applicants, the result of applications filed before 29 March 2019 still making their way through the system.

The direct replacement for Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) was the Innovator visa. It was, by the Home Office’s own admission, designed to reduce the number of overseas entrepreneurs getting UK visas. In that noble aim the department has admirably succeeded: the combined number of entrepreneur-type visa applications has fallen off a cliff after Innovator replaced Entrepreneur.

Put another way: in the last quarter of 2018, the Home Office issued 894 Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visas, including dependants. In the last quarter of 2019, it granted just 66 Innovator visas.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

  • Главный Модератор

93% jump in UK study visas issued to Indians

  • Uptick attributed to 2-year post-study work permit, lower education cost
  • Over 515,000 Indians received tourist visas last year, up 8% compared to the previous year

NEW DELHI : Over 37,500 Indian students joined UK universities in 2019, a 93% jump in the number of study visas granted by Britain, UK Immigration Statistics data showed on Thursday.

The data comes months after the UK announced the introduction of post-study work permit of two years for international students called the Graduate Immigration Route (GIR). Though the details are yet to emerge, the UK government has said that it will be applicable to students who graduate from the summer of 2021, which effectively covers fresh admissions.

A total of 37,540 Indian students received a Tier 4 (study) visa in 2019, as against 19,479 in 2018. Data showed Indians also received 57,199 Tier 2 skilled work visas in 2019 clocking 3% growth from the year-ago.

“This represents the largest number of visas issued to Indian students over the last eight years and continues the strong upward trend in student visa numbers since 2016. Indians are currently the fastest growing nationality for student visas," the British High Commission said.

Naveen Kumar Saini/Mint

The skilled work visas granted last year accounts for over 50% of all skilled work visas granted globally—meaning more such visas were granted to Indians than the rest of the world combined, the high commission added.

“It is exciting to see so many Indian students trusting the UK as the destination for their education and furthering their careers. This bodes very well for both countries’ continued focus on realising their knowledge ambitions in a fast-changing world," said Barbara Wickham, director-India, British Council.

Jan Thompson, acting high commissioner to India, said the increase in student numbers is “testament both to the UK’s world leading education system and to the exceptional talents of Indian students. We couldn’t be prouder that the best and brightest continue to pick the UK, making the living bridge between our countries stronger each day."

An Indian expert said the spike was not surprising and 2020 may see this number going up further. “The UK numbers are going up largely because of three reasons—the GIR announced in October 2019 allowing post-study permit from 2021; the relative inexpensiveness of education in the UK compared to the US; and the growing cost of Indian education in courses like management at top colleges here," said Suneet Singh Kochar, chief executive, Fateh Education, a firm that helps students get admission in British universities.

Arjun Gaur, a law student about to join the London School of Economics, said: “While UK masters from top institutes are almost the same as those from top US institutions, the fee structure is 30-40% less in the UK. In the UK, I believe the courses are more research-oriented than the US, where it is application-oriented."

After India, the US (9,240) received the second highest number of Tier 2 work visas. In 2019, UK granted 113,958 tier 2 work visas.

Meanwhile, the UK continues to be a popular destination for Indian holidaymakers. More than 515,000 Indian nationals received visit visas (tourist visas) last year, up 8% compared to the previous year.

 

Источник

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

03 March 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Migrant victim of domestic abuse successfully campaigns for change to student loan rules: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/276.html

In OA v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 276 (Admin), the High Court has ruled that the student loan regulations unlawfully discriminated against migrant victims of domestic violence and abuse. The rules required three years’ lawful residence in the UK to qualify for a student loan but failed to take account the possibility that domestic abuse victims would be less likely to have this because of an abusive partner stopping them from sorting out their immigration status. Since women are more likely to suffer from domestic abuse, the three-year lawful residence rule discriminated against women and was therefore in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Prior to the case being heard, and in response to OA’s lobbying, the government changed the regulations. The rules now take account of victims of domestic violence in deciding eligibility for student loans. But, perplexingly, the government continued to defend its decision to refuse the loan in this case.

Fortunately, Mr Justice Nicol stepped in. OA will be able to continue her studies without waiting for the new regulations to come into force.

OA is a Nigerian citizen who has lived in the United Kingdom since 2011. She obtained indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic abuse and was accepted onto a Biomedical Science course at university. But the Student Loan Company refused to give her a loan because she did not have three years’ lawful residence. Without the loan, OA would have had to give up on her degree.

The break in lawful residence occurred during a period in which OA’s controlling partner had all her residence documents, including her passport. This is not an unusual scenario: as she told the High Court, “one of the forms that domestic abuse can take is the control of travel documentation, meaning that abused spouses (predominantly women) are liable to have gaps in their leave to remain in the UK”.

OA challenged the decision, arguing that the three-year lawful residence rule indirectly discriminated against women. Evidence from the Home Office showed that the vast majority of those granted indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse are women. Women are therefore much more likely than men to be denied access to university education as a result of the rule.

Mr Justice Nicol identified this result as discriminatory, rejecting the usual government defence that the discrimination was justified on the grounds of cost and administrative convenience. Interestingly, he also dismissed the argument that the relatively quick access to indefinite leave to remain available for victims of domestic violence could compensate for the discriminatory effect of the three-year rule:


    "The relative advantage of speedier access to ILR did not eliminate the disadvantage of the discriminatory requirement of having 3 years ordinary and lawful residence.

    In conclusion, I find that the Defendant has failed to justify the discrimination against the Claimant. It follows that there has been a breach of the Claimant’s rights under Article 14 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] when read with [Article 2 of the First Protocol]."

The ramifications of the judgment itself are likely to be small because OA had already convinced the government to change its policy, but the decision is still a pleasing example of the High Court conducting a robust review of indirect discrimination.

>>> Immigration bail policy updated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869352/Immigration-bail-v5.0ext.pdf

The Home Office has updated its policy guidance on immigration bail, with a couple of changes to note.

First, asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights will no longer automatically be subject to study restrictions.

Second, the Home Office will now have five working days to decide whether someone who is not detained should be granted bail accommodation under Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016. For certain groups, such as homeless people or pregnant women, officials will make “reasonable efforts” to ensure a decision within two working days.

Accommodation delays are still a big issue. Lengthy delays responding to accommodation requests, often after bail has been granted “in principle” by an immigration judge, has kept hundreds in detention for prolonged periods.

While time limits for considering accommodation requests are a welcome change, the Home Office may be missing the point by focusing solely on non-detained people. There’s no reason why these provisions couldn’t apply to those inside detention as well.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

04 March 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Judicial review challenge to restricted leave policy fails: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/414.html

The Upper Tribunal has dismissed a judicial review of the restricted leave policy. This policy governs the grant of leave to remain in the UK to people who the Home Office wishes to remove but cannot because it would breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

The restricted leave policy states that indefinite leave to remain will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, even after long periods of residence in the UK. Instead, it requires officials to grant short periods of leave to remain with highly restrictive conditions. The intention of the policy is to prevent serious foreign national criminals, like convicted terrorists, from integrating into UK society while they await removal.

While that might sound like a reasonable idea, in practice it means that many people whose undesirable conduct may have taken place decades ago are stuck in limbo.

The official headnote

"(i) A decision of the Secretary of State not to grant indefinite leave to remain to a person subject to the restricted leave policy (“the RL policy”) does not normally engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Article 8 may be engaged by a decision to refuse to grant indefinite leave to remain where, for example, the poor state of an individual’s mental and physical health is such that regular, repeated grants of restricted leave are capable of having a distinct and acute impact on the health of the individual concerned.

(ii) Once Article 8 is engaged by a decision to refuse indefinite leave to remain under the RL policy, the import of Article 8 will be inherently fact-specific, and must be considered in light of the criteria set out in MS (India) and MT (Tunisia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1190. The views of the Secretary of State attract weight, given her institutional competence on matters relating to the public interest and the United Kingdom’s reputation as a guardian of the international rule of law.

(iii) To obtain indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules on the basis of long (partially unlawful) residence in cases involving no suitability concerns, paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii), taken with paragraph 276DE, requires a total of 30 years’ residence. A person who satisfies paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii) following 20 years’ residence is merely entitled to 30 months’ limited leave to remain on the ten year route to settlement.

(iv) Paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 disapplies the prohibition against disability discrimination contained in section 29 of the Act in relation to a decision to grant restricted leave that is taken in connection with a decision to refuse an application for a more beneficial category of leave in the circumstances set out in paragraph 16(3).

(v) To the extent that paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 disapplies the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of disability, there is a corresponding modification to the public sector equality duty imposed on the Secretary of State by section 149 of the Act."

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

09 March 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>> Government publishes Immigration Bill 2.0: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-immigration-bill-to-end-free-movement-introduced-to-parliament?utm_source=382549e7-d2ed-4f12-b579-c28d4e18e665&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

An Immigration Bill has been introduced to the House of recently. It is expected to be similar to the one introduced in 2018 by then Home Secretary Sajid Javid, which ultimately lapsed when the Johnson government took power and secured a general election.

The revived bill was foreshadowed in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, published after the Conservative victory in that election. The main elements are an end to free movement of EU citizens — which would otherwise be preserved in UK law despite Brexit — and a legislative guarantee of the special rights of Irish citizens.

The draft law is said to “pave the way” for a points based immigration system, although the press release also refers to that being implemented through changes to the Immigration Rules later in the year.

The 2020 version of the bill has been presented not by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, but by her deputy, Kevin Foster. Patel may be a little busy trying to salvage her political career, but has tweeted in support of the bill.

The Home Office has been engaged in some light rebranding ahead of the bill’s publication. Foster is no longer merely the Immigration Minister, but the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration. Tier 2 (General) is now the General work visa (Tier 2): https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general, while Tier 4 (General) is now the General student visa (Tier 4): https://www.gov.uk/tier-4-general-visa.

>>> Sudanese man unlawfully refused indefinite leave to remain after domestic abuse: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/326.html

The case of R (Suliman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 326 (Admin) is a welcome reminder to the Home Office that there may be an array of reasons for a victim of domestic abuse not to tell the authorities.

Mr Suliman is a Sudanese citizen who applied for indefinite leave to remain on the basis that he had been a victim of domestic abuse. The Home Office refused his application. Quoting the High Court:

"After summarising some of the evidence which [Mr Suliman] had submitted the decision maker said, ‘… nowhere in these notes is any explanation given for these injuries in that your wife caused them.’. In effect, therefore, the Secretary of State whilst accepting that the Claimant had attended hospital with injuries that are consistent with his account, refused to conclude that the Claimant’s wife caused them. [paragraph 20]"

The High Court found, however, that the refusal was unlawful because it failed to address the reasons given by Mr Suliman as to why he didn’t report the abuse:

"the Secretary of State did not address or deal with the reasons explained by the Claimant why he was reluctant to tell the police or the medical authorities. These were, variously, his own sense of shame; ‘cowardness’; his residual love for his wife despite her behaviour; and his fear of losing her or getting her into trouble. If the Secretary of State was going to deal with matters fairly then this evidence needed to be confronted and a conclusion reached. [25] "

It is also gratifying to see that Mr Justice Julian Knowles found those explanations plausible:

    "I am bound to say that these explanations all strike me as being inherently plausible and the fairly typical response of an abused partner in a relationship. They provide at least an equally convincing explanation for why the Claimant said nothing at the time as the one reached by the Secretary of State, ie, that he had not been assaulted by his wife. Fairness required the Secretary of State to address it.[25]"

The judge therefore quashed the refusal of indefinite leave to remain.

Interestingly, the Home Office also said that Mr Suliman technically didn’t qualify for the domestic abuse settlement scheme within the Immigration Rules because he had never been granted leave as a partner under Appendix FM of the Rules. Instead, his leave to remain was under Part 8 of the Immigration Rules, which preceded Appendix FM.

The Home Office did, however, go on to accept that Mr Suliman had been granted leave as a partner and considered his application outside the Rules. Any other conclusion would have gone against the spirit of the immigration system’s approach to domestic abuse, which is to enable migrants in the UK to escape an abusive relationship without endangering their immigration status.

>>> Removing Afghan Sikhs does not breach their Article 3 rights: A.S.N. and Others v The Netherlands (application nos. 68377/17 and 530/18)

The Sikh community in Afghanistan used to be a sizeable religious minority within that country, but the effect of persecution over the past 30 years has meant that 99% have now emigrated. The United Nations and other international observers estimate that there may be only 1,000 Sikhs left in Afghanistan, primarily in Kabul.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there is no general risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment for Afghan Sikhs, and that there would be no breach of Article 3 of the human rights convention by removing a Sikh family to Afghanistan. The case is A.S.N. and Others v The Netherlands (application nos. 68377/17 and 530/18).

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

10 March 2020 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org - +44(0)3300010342, +44(0)7791145023 (WhatsApp/Viber)

>>>  Indefinite leave to remain: calculating continuous period in UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/indefinite-leave-to-remain-calculating-continuous-period-in-uk

Immigration staff guidance on calculating the 5 year continuous period in the UK requirement for an applicant.

This version:

• adds the Global Talent category to the list of immigration categories covered by this instruction
• adds an exemption for Global Talent and Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) applicants in certain sectors who have had absences linked to their endorsement (such as conducting research overseas)
• adds minor clarifications and corrections
It replaces the Indefinite leave to remain: calculating continuous period in UK modernised guidance version 19.0 which has been withdrawn and archived.

>>>  Knowledge of language and life in the UK - Updated Guidance Version 24.0

Update: Clarified the list of people who do not need to meet the KoLL requirement.

"The following categories of people do not need to meet the KoLL requirement:

- victims of domestic violence
- foreign and Commonwealth citizens on discharge from HM Forces (including Gurkhas)
- highly skilled migrants applying under the terms of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) judicial review, and their dependants
- bereaved spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners or - same-sex partners of people present and settled in the UK
parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives of people present and settled in the UK, applying under paragraph 317 of the Immigration Rules, even if they are aged between 18 and 64
- adult dependent relatives, under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, even if they are aged between 18 and 64
retired persons of independent means
- people applying for ILR as a refugee
- people applying for ILR on the basis of discretionary leave "

>>> English language requirements: skilled workers: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiGsICBwY_oAhVE5eAKHVEWDBEQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F870839%2Fenglish-language-v17.0ext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3jDZBtDhx41wWmglYqv7k3

Update: Changes made to reflect the introduction of the Global Talent category into the Immigration Rules on 20 February.

>>>  Guidance for dependants of UK visa applicants (Tiers 1, 2, 4, 5 and Appendix W): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-dependants-of-uk-visa-applicants-tiers-1-2-4-5

Full guidance on the policy for applications by the family of people who have UK visas under the points-based system (PBS dependants) and Appendix W workers.

>>> EU citizens are protected by EU law, High Court reminds government: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/437.html

The High Court has held that the Home Office trying to apply its “deport first, appeal later” policy to EU citizens is incompatible with European Union law. The case is Hafeez v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2020] EWHC 437 (Admin)

In Hafeez, the High Court considered what test applies when deciding whether to certify a case. Are EU citizens protected by EU law (as one would expect) or does domestic law (in this case, the Human Right Act) apply?

This will be a helpful decision for EU citizens facing deportation from the UK and those representing them. It makes it clear that EU law applies to all stages of the deportation process.

The Home Office can still certify cases and deport EU nationals before their appeals have concluded. However it needs to apply EU law when doing so.  

At the moment the test for certification is whether the person would face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed before the appeal is concluded. This test is based on the Human Rights Act and the person’s right to private and family life.

Now the test for certification is more stringent. The Home Office must demonstrate that:

    "The personal conduct of the individual concerned represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society;
    Removal prior to conclusion of the appeal process is necessary on grounds of public policy, public security or public health;
    The objective to be achieved by removing the person before conclusion of their appeal cannot be achieved by a less onerous method; and
    The burden imposed by removal is not disproportionate to the benefits secured."

The decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Considerations of general prevention are not permitted. Previous criminal convictions cannot, in themselves, constitute grounds for removal.

This is a much more difficult test for the Home Office to meet. As a result, use of the “deport first, appeal later” power is likely to be used less frequently, and only in the most serious cases.

>>>  Guidance on examining identity documents: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recognising-fraudulent-identity-documents

A guide on how to detect basic forgeries in identity documents.

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

Ссылка на комментарий
Поделиться на другие сайты

Присоединяйтесь к обсуждению

Вы можете написать сейчас и зарегистрироваться позже. Если у вас есть аккаунт, авторизуйтесь, чтобы опубликовать от имени своего аккаунта.

Гость
Ответить в этой теме...

×   Вставлено с форматированием.   Вставить как обычный текст

  Разрешено использовать не более 75 эмодзи.

×   Ваша ссылка была автоматически встроена.   Отображать как обычную ссылку

×   Ваш предыдущий контент был восстановлен.   Очистить редактор

×   Вы не можете вставлять изображения напрямую. Загружайте или вставляйте изображения по ссылке.



×
×
  • Создать...