Важные судебные решения и новости для иммигрантов

[British Lawyer]

Еще одно успешно завершённое заявление по легализации.

Клиент с Украины получил BRP на 2.5 года по т.н. категории Family - Private Life.

Заявление рассмотрели и одобрили за 7.5 месяцев.

Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений заявлений клиентов.

 

[British Lawyer]

Еще один клиент с Украины легализовался в Великобритании на по т.н. Private Life route.

Заявление рассмотрели и одобрили за 7 месяцев.

Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений заявлений клиентов.

 

[British Lawyer]

Еще один ребенок с Украины был легализован через заявление по т.н. Private Life route. Ребенок получил ВНЖ сразу на 5 лет может подать на ПМЖ (ILR) через 5 лет.

Заявление одобрили за 7 месяцев.

Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений решений клиентов.

[British Lawyer]

18 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Sponsors no longer need to report changes to hybrid and remote working: Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors part 3: sponsor duties and compliance (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The updated Sponsor Guidance explains UKVI’s reasoning:

“We recognise that many organisations have adopted a “hybrid working” model, where their workers work remotely (from either their home or another remote site, such as a work hub space) on a regular basis, as well as regularly attending a ‘traditional’ work location (such as one or more of your offices or branches, or a client site)…”

Some reports are still needed

UKVI has confirmed that sponsors “no longer need to tell us if a sponsored worker is moving to a hybrid working pattern but you must continue to report any changes to their main office work location, or of any new client sites, if applicable, and maintain suitable records of your sponsored workers’ working patterns”.
In such cases, it is important that employers are aware that UKVI can ask for an explanation as to why the sponsored worker needs to live in the UK at all.

Compliance

UKVI’s officers carry out on-site in person audits as well as remote ones to check compliance. It is therefore important that sponsors retain records, including relating to sponsored worker’s work patterns, to demonstrate that they understand and comply with the Sponsor Guidance.

 

[British Lawyer]

20 March 2024

Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre

www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

 

>>> Roehrig upheld by Court of Appeal: no changes for certain children of EU citizens not entitled to British citizenship: Roehrig, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 240 (12 March 2024) (bailii.org)

 

In the context of British nationality law, EEA citizens residing in the UK from 2 October 2000 continue to not meet the definition of “settled”, unless they held indefinite leave to remain or had acquired permanent residence. This was confirmed last week by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Roehrig) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 240.

[British Lawyer]

22 March 2024

Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>>  Online immigration status (eVisa)

Information on eVisas and why you need one:   https://www.gov.uk/guidance/online-immigration-status-evisa?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=67dbd4de-ba5f-4b06-9e28-7065186bce25&utm_content=daily

 

[British Lawyer]

26 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>>  Withdrawal Agreement cannot help woman who made wrong type of family permit application says Court of Appeal: Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248 (14 March 2024) (bailii.org)

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision that those who applied for the wrong type of family permit before the end of the Brexit transition period cannot benefit from the EU Settlement Scheme or the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
The decision is Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248. The leading judgment is provided by Lord Justice Dingemans.
 

[British Lawyer]

28 March 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>>  Irish High Court finds decision to list the UK as a safe country for asylum seekers unlawful:

See A & anor v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General & anor [2024] IEHC 164

Namely, the Irish High Court has held that the decision to put the UK on the list of safe third countries to return people seeking asylum to has been held unlawful.
UK is no longer a safe country for the asylum seekers, it seems.
This case is a useful reminder that what the UK is doing in relation to asylum policy does have an impact on its relationship with other countries. Presumably if EU countries are unable to return people seeking asylum to the UK, they will be reluctant to accept any the UK wishes to return.

[British Lawyer]

03 April 2024

Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre

www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

 

>>> High Court rejects trafficking claim from claimant who had not yet been exploited: MT, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 640 (Admin) (22 March 2024) (bailii.org)

 

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review raised by an Albanian national challenging a negative reasonable grounds (first stage) decision in his trafficking claim, finding that his employer did not have the intention to exploit him at the point of recruitment. The case is R (MT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 640 (Admin). The decision focuses on a fairly narrow point of law, namely the “purpose” element of the trafficking definition under Article 4 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against the Trafficking in Human Being (“ECAT”).

 

Edited April 3 by British Lawyer

[British Lawyer]

09 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> The Graduate Route will be reviewed by the MAC on the 14th May 2024

Anything is on the cards: the route may be recommended to b abolished, reduced to PhD only etc.

[British Lawyer]

12 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Important changed in relation to the Long Residence Rule: Long residence (accessible) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Note the following changes:
“… transitional arrangements preserve the position that continuous residence will be broken if an applicant has been absent from the UK for more than 184 days at any one time or for more than a total of 548 days overall, where that absence started before 11 April 2024. This means that:
•    any single absences started before 11 April 2024 must be no longer than 184 days
•    a 10-year period completed before 11 April 2024 must not have total absences of more than 548 days - ***** for 10-year periods which extend beyond 11 April 2024, there is no 548-day limit *****

•    ***** from 11 April 2024 the applicant must not have been outside the UK for more than 180 days in any 12-month period *****

>>> Naturalization fees go up for the 2nd time in one year: Fees for citizenship applications and the right of abode from 4 October 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[British Lawyer]

19 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Person with indefinite leave unable to return to the UK for over 15 years after Home Office mistake: Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 372 (17 April 2024) (bailii.org)

The Home Secretary has lost a case where it was argued that a refugee who held indefinite leave to remain in the UK should not be permitted to return to the UK based on his right to a private life. The refugee in question had lost his travel document while outside the UK, tried unsuccessfully to get another one from the British embassy but failed to do so because the Home Office had not kept a record of his grant of indefinite leave.

Remarkably, this was a Cart judicial review (where a decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal can be challenged by judicial review) that had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, indicating a litany of judicial failures at earlier stages. The case is Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 372.

[British Lawyer]

24 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> A man from Belarus: 26 years with no legal status in the UK or the Supreme Court finds no human right to legal status if it’s your own fault you can’t be removed

See R (on the application of AM (Belarus)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) - The Supreme Court
In AM (Belarus) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKSC 13, in a judgment delivered by Lord Sales, the Supreme Court has held that a man living in the United Kingdom for twenty six years with no immigration status was not entitled to status on human rights or other grounds because it was his own fault. He had repeatedly been found by the Home Office and judges to be a national of Belarus but when removed there in 2001 had claimed to the Belarussian authorities not to be a citizen. They refused to accept him and he was therefore returned to the UK. Since then, he had continued to obstruct efforts to redocument him as Belarussian and remove him there.

Normally a person with twenty years of illegal residence can apply for legal status under the immigration rules. This was not open to AM, though, because he had committed several criminal offences and was therefore excluded from succeeding by the suitability criteria that apply to that route. He was therefore left relying on human rights grounds.

In the meantime, AM could not legally work, rent accommodation, access anything other than emergency NHS care, open a bank account or claim benefits other than destitution-level asylum support. He had developed very serious mental health and addiction issues and committed further offences. One was a false identity offence, perhaps rather unsurprisingly in the circumstances. This was described with considerable, arguably insulting, understatement by the Supreme Court as not “an especially enviable life”.

The Upper Tribunal held that AM was entitled to leave to remain on human grounds, his being a genuinely exceptional case. His example was hardly likely to inspire others to emulate him, given how miserable his existence in the UK had become. The Home Office appealed but the Court of Appeal agreed with the Upper Tribunal.

Allowing the Home Office appeal, the Supreme Court disapproved guidance from the Court of Appeal on limbo cases from the earlier case of RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 850.

[British Lawyer]

29 April 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Upper Tribunal confirms that appellants lost their rights under EU law once sponsor lost his EU citizenship: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nagdev & Anor (Procedural safeguards; expulsion; Chenchooliah) [2024] UKUT 101 (IAC) (15 February 2024) (bailii.org)

Headnote

The decision of the CJEU in Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] EUECJ C-94/18 (10 September 2019); [2020] Imm AR 80 extended the procedural safeguards in the Citizens’ Rights Directive to protect third country nationals against decisions to expel them, where expulsion was on the ground that they no longer have a right of residence under the Directive. Where there has been no expulsion decision, the procedural safeguards are of no application and no question of proportionality arises.

 

[British Lawyer]

09 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> List of the Legal Aid providers: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/directory-of-legal-aid-providers

Immigration included.

[British Lawyer]

14 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) says Graduate route should be kept in its current form: Graduate route: rapid review - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The Migration Advisory Committee has today published its “rapid review” of the Graduate route, concluding that the route is not being abused and should remain in place in its current form. The letter from the Chair states:

“We have not found evidence of widespread abuse on the Graduate route, where we define abuse as deliberate non-compliance with immigration rules, and we conclude that the route is not undermining the integrity and quality of the UK higher education system. However, we have reason to believe that some agents and subagents recruiting international students are mis-selling UK higher education and exploiting students in the process. We expect the impact on public finances of Graduate visa holders on the route to be small but positive, as most appear to work, are young, and have no recourse to public funds.”

Three recommendations were made:

• that the Graduate route is retained in its current form
• that a mandatory registration system is set up for international recruitment agents and subagents and that universities should be required to publish annual data how much they have spent on recruitment agents and the number of international students who are recruited this way
• recommendations on data and monitoring for the route and the wider immigration system, including that the government only opens new routes or makes significant policy changes when it has a plan for how it will collect and monitor data to assess the effectiveness of the route and understand wider impacts

The Home Office has today published “Analysis of migrants use of the Graduate route” which they say “seeks to complement” the committee’s report. See Analysis of migrants use of the Graduate route - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[British Lawyer]

15 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Rwanda scheme amended to include failed asylum seekers: Returns preparation: caseworker guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

On Monday the Home Office updated the guidance documents relating to removals to Rwanda and retroactively amended the Rwanda agreement to include the possibility of sending failed asylum seekers there. This was done via a letter from the British High Commissioner in Rwanda to Rwanda’s Permanent Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

 

[British Lawyer]

16 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Online immigration status (eVisa): help videos

See Online immigration status (eVisa): help videos - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) and Online immigration status (eVisa): help videos - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 
 

[British Lawyer]

А вот так выглядит BRP выданная родителю британского ребенка.

Заявление рассмотрели и одобрили за 4 месяца.

Делюсь статистикой ежедневных одобрений заявлений клиентов.

 

Home Office "закручивает гайки".

Это первый отказ какого рода из моей практики. 

В то же время, ЗАЯВИТЕЛЬ НЕ ДОЛЖЕН ПОКИДАТЬ ВЕЛИКОБРИТАНИЮ ВО ВРЕМЯ РАССМОТРЕНИЯ ИММИГРАЦИОННОГО РЕШЕНИЯ. Если аппликант Великобританию в тот момент, когда его/ее иммиграционное заявление рассматривается, заявление будет АННУЛИРОВАННО на основании параграфа 34K Иммиграционных Правил.

Обратите внимание !

 

[British Lawyer]

Еще 2 клиента нашего Legal Centre - Private UK & EEA Immigration Lawyers and Advocates сегодня получили ПМЖ(ILR) в Великобритании.

Заявление на ПМЖ для беженца рассмотрели за 2 месяца.
Заявление по супружеской визе жены британца рассмотрели за 1 день.

Делюсь статистикой ежедневных заявлений клиентов.

 

[British Lawyer]

Еще 2 клиента нашего Legal Centre - Private UK & EEA Immigration Lawyers and Advocates сегодня получили ПМЖ(ILR) в Великобритании.

Заявление на ПМЖ для беженца рассмотрели за 2 месяца.
Заявление по супружеской визе жены британца рассмотрели за 1 день.

Делюсь статистикой ежедневных заявлений клиентов.

 

21 May 2024

Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre

www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

 

>>> Updated List of the Referees who can sign the Naturalization application Referees Declaration: Countersigning passport applications and photos: Accepted occupations for countersignatories - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[British Lawyer]

21 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> High Court finds use of electronic monitoring to be unlawful: ADL & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 994 (Admin) (15 May 2024) (bailii.org)

The High Court has determined that the Home Secretary’s use of electronic monitoring was unlawful in respect of four claimants and the principles applied in the case will have a wider impact. The court also found that the Home Secretary can lawfully use data collected through electronic monitoring to decide application for leave made by people who have been tagged. The case is ADL & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 994 (Admin).

While the findings on the lawfulness of electronic monitoring are useful, the court’s decision on the lawfulness of the Home Office using the monitoring data in deciding leave applications is concerning.

[British Lawyer]

22 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Can a human rights, protection, or Appendix EU application be made when an appeal is pending?

The answer is “Yes”. 

Note that ONLY a protection or human rights claim or an Appendix EU application can be made whilst an appeal is pending.

Other application types usually CANNOT BE MADE while the appeal is pending.

This is set out in paragraph 34KC of the Immigration Rules

[British Lawyer]

23 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Unsuccessful challenge to entry clearance refusal by man who claimed not to have received curtailment notice: Escobar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1097 (Admin) (10 May 2024) (bailii.org)

A man who had lived in the UK for over 20 years and was married to a British national before the relationship broke down has been unsuccessful in his challenge to an entry clearance refusal on the grounds that he had not received the notice of curtailment.

 

[British Lawyer]

24 May 2024
Important UK Immigration News and Updates from the Legal Centre
www.legalcentre.org +44 77 911 45 923 (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype)

>>> Upper Tribunal considers citizenship deprivation on grounds of deception and good character test: Onuzi (good character requirement: Sleiman considered) Albania [2024] UKUT 144 (IAC) (16 April 2024) (bailii.org)

In Onuzi (good character requirement: Sleiman considered) Albania [2024] UKUT 144 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal makes a reference to the case of Sleiman:

1.    Each case is fact sensitive. In the absence of a statutory definition of ‘good character’, the starting point is for the Secretary of State to decide, subject to general principles of administrative law, whether a person is of good character for the purpose of granting citizenship under section 6(1) and Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (‘BNA 1981’).

2.    Any negative behaviour that might cast doubt on whether a person is of good character is likely to be directly material to the assessment of the statutory requirement, whether it played a role in the application for naturalisation itself or took place before the application. 

3.    In the majority of cases where negative behaviour that might cast doubt on whether a person is of good character has been dishonestly concealed from the Secretary of State, the fact that the negative behaviour might not have been directly relevant to an earlier grant of leave is unlikely to make any material difference to the assessment under section 40(3) BNA 1981. It is for the Secretary of State to decide, subject to general principles of administrative law, whether the negative behaviour might have made a material difference to the assessment of good character under section 6(1) BNA 1981 had the information been known at the time.

4.    The omission of a fact that might have cast doubt on whether a person is of good character when they applied for naturalisation is likely to be material to the question of whether a person ‘obtained’ citizenship by the dishonest concealment of a material fact for the purpose of section 40(3) BNA 1981.

5.    The concept of a chain of causation being broken is only likely to be relevant in cases where there was full disclosure and the Secretary of State exercised discretion to grant leave to remain or naturalisation while in full possession of the facts.

6.    The decision in Sleiman was based on limited argument and should be read in the full context of the statutory scheme and other relevant case law.

This certainly narrows down the available arguments in these citizenship deprivation cases. The Onuzi determination is a strange one, though. There’s no sign of recognition that the exercise the tribunal is supposed to be undertaking here is a review of the original Home Office decision on public law grounds only. This is unsurprising for the original First-tier determination, which predates the case of Chimi. It’s more surprising of the Upper Tribunal’s decision, which reads a lot like a forbidden merits review.