Перейти к содержанию



British Lawyer

Важные судебные решения и новости для иммигрантов

Рекомендуемые сообщения

Новые изменения в Правилах от 01-04-2014: Собственно говоря: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...01-1-april-2014</noindex>

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

O&B v Mimister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel C-456/12, Court of Justice of the European Union

 

Европейский Суд Справедливости постановил, что на основании т.н. European law граждане из EU имеют право жить с/привозить членов своих семей, кто не сами не являются гражданами EU. Данное решение суда важно тем, что оно подтверждает что не только рабочие или самозанятые (employed and self-employed) граждане EU могут использовать прецедент Surinder Singh в интересах своих семей.

 

Это решение суда так же бросает тень сомнения на принятые в январе 2014 года изменения в Immigration (EEA) Regulations в отношении версии трактовки UK BA заявлений по сценарию Surinder Singh (перенос центра жизни в другею страну и т.п.).

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

Разъяснение UK BA по поводу анкет FLR(FP) и FLR(O)

 

В догонку о теме (не смог найти) насчет какую анкету подавать при продлении Discretionary Leave (DL), полученную до 09-07-2012. Оказывается, сам UK BA не знал. Из ответа UK BA:

 

Unfortunately, some Validation Officers incorrectly requested customers to complete an FLR FP application form for an Active Review of Discretionary Leave (for those

granted DL before 09-07-2012 having never claimed Asylum). The FLRO application form is the correct form to use when applying for an Active Review of Discretionary

Leave. To address this issue we have invested in more training and provided Validation Officers with further application form guidance.

 

Хоть честно сказали.

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

Разъяснение UK BA по поводу студентов Tier4, кто являются директорами компаний.

 

Был задан вопрос:

 

“Tier 4 students are of course prohibited from being employed on a self-employed basis. Please can you confirm UKVI's position in relation to students who are classed as employed directors of UK companies who take salaries (NI/PAYE) as well as dividend payments.

 

Are they entitled to work under the conditions of their stay?”

 

Ответ UK BA (важное выделено):

 

“The Immigration Rules gives the following definition of “Self-Employed” as follows:

 

Under Part 6A of these Rules, "Self-Employed" means an applicant is registered as self-employed with HM Revenue & Customs, or is employed by a company of which the applicant is a controlling shareholder.

 

Therefore, although he may not be registered as self-employed with HMRC, if he is a Director, you will need to check if he is a controlling shareholder. Anyone who owns 10% or more of the company’s shares would be a controlling shareholder.”

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

Отмена апелляций (за исключение по убежищу) и т.п. – Новый Immigration Bill

 

Одним абзацем про то, что меняется в новом Immigration Bill (via Ilpa):

 

"The Immigration Bill has not yet received Royal assent, but the final version of the text of the Bill has now been agreed by both Houses. The last vote was on deprivation of citizenship resulting in statelessness; it was lost in the House of Lords by 286 votes to 193, with the majority of peers satisfied that the Government had moved far enough by its introduction of both an obligation to review and, more significantly, a limitation of the power to cases where the Secretary of State “reasonably” believes that a person can become a national of another country. The other outstanding matter, guardians or “person advocates” as they look set to be called was not pressed after the Government promised something (although I am not entirely clear what) in the Modern Slavery Bill. The big changes we all need to gear up for include changes to removal (clause 1) and to rights of appeal – only appeals against asylum and human rights decisions will be left and then only on asylum and human rights grounds. Limitations to bail rights, the dreaded “residential tenancies provisions (if only in a pilot at first), new restrictions on health care, driving licences, bank accounts marriage, new powers to take biometrics, changes to the Office of the immigration Services Commissioner’s regime, new powers with respect to fees, and then the good news of amendments to British nationality law on illegitimacy – this is a wide-ranging bill. We have not walked away empty-handed from the debates on this highly politicised bill but there is still much to dread.".

 

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

Новые формы SETO, SETM (06/14)

 

Обратите внимание на новые формы SET(O), SET(M) версия 06/14: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...rsion_06-14.pdf</noindex>

 

Всего 75 страниц.

 

Возможно, другие формы так же обновились.

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

UK Visas and Immigration будет рассылать E-mail updates по поданным заявлениям.

 

Отрывок из E-mail UK BA (UK Visas and Immigration как онт теперь назваются; выделение мое):

 

"I am writing to inform you that UK Visas and Immigration will begin an initiative from 2 June 2014 whereby Permanent Migration (European, Settlement and Nationality) customers will receive status updates about their application by email. This initiative will take place for up to six months subject to any internal evaluations. The aim is to ensure that customers are aware of how their case is progressing and has been developed in response to customer feedback who indicated they would welcome this communication.

 

Customers will be able to provide their email address to us on newly amended application forms. Please note that updates will only be sent to those specified addresses and validated application forms. Please note that all current forms of postal communications will continue".

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

Important Upper Tribunal judgment in Shen (Paper appeals; proving dishonesty) [2014] UKUT 00236 (IAC). The Tribunal gives guidance as to the correct approach to be applied when the Secretary of State alleges dishonesty (reaffirming that the burden in on her to establish the assertion). It emphasises that such a finding is not to be made lightly, given the consequences for the applicant concerned.

 

Shen (Paper appeals; proving dishonesty) [2014] UKUT 00236 (IAC)

 

Headnote:

 

(1) In terms of the approach that a tribunal should adopt towards decisions of the Secretary of State in which dishonesty or deception is alleged against an applicant for leave to remain, the starting point should be, as the Court of Appeal in Adedoyin (formerly AA (Nigeria) v SSHD) [2010] EWCA Civ 773 have made clear, that pursuant to paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules, the reference to "false" means "dishonestly" false.

 

(2) Where an application form etc is false in a material way, this may be relied on by the Secretary of State as prima facie evidence establishing dishonesty. The inference of deliberate deception can be strengthened by other facts: eg if a criminal conviction (not disclosed in an application) occurred shortly before completion of the application form. Here, the conviction must have been high in the applicant’s mind and any explanation based on oversight would carry little weight. But it is always open to an appellant to proffer an innocent explanation and if that explanation meets a basic level of plausibility, the burden switches back to the Secretary of State to answer that evidence. At the end of the day the Secretary of State bears the burden of proving dishonesty.

 

(3) The internal organisational decision by the Secretary of State not to engage with paper appeals means that the appellant's evidence goes unchallenged. In that regard, it must be remembered, that in the absence of evidence from the Secretary of State putting the appellant's prima facie plausible explanation into doubt, it would be wrong to find dishonesty. Thus, in view of the possible evidential difficulties confronting a judge when deciding a paper application, where the appellant's evidence is not met (see para (2) above), a tribunal should be slow to find dishonesty, particularly without hearing evidence and submissions on the point from the appellant and/or the Secretary of State.

 

(4) A finding of dishonesty can have catastrophic consequences for the appellant in social and economic terms and is not to be made lightly. Thus, in a paper case, if a judge entertains doubts as to the appellant's account, he or she should be mindful of the powers of rule 45 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 to give directions regarding supporting documentary evidence, or for the Secretary of State to respond to the appellant's evidence as she considers appropriate.

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

Другие правила по категории Unmarried Partners для беженцев.

 

Суд (UK UT) постановил, что на беженцев распостраняются "другие" понятия/правила в отношении привоза партнеров по категории unmarried partners:

 

Fetle (Partners: two year requirement) [2014] UKUT 00267 (IAC)

 

Concerns Refugee Family Reunion applications with unmarried partners

 

In contrast to the requirement of para GEN 1.2(iv) of Appendix FM, a requirement (such as in paragraph 352AA of the Immigration Rules) that “parties have been living together in a relationship akin to either a marriage or a civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more” does not require two years cohabitation, but two years subsistence of the relationship. Whether the relationship still subsists, as required by the tense of that requirement and as may be separately required, is a different issue.<>

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

Новая форма AN (06/14) c ошибкой - обратите внимание

 

Появилась новая форма AN (06/2014): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...orm_AN_v1_0.pdf</noindex>

 

Несмотря на то, что отменили т.н. скидку за joint application для с семейных пар (т.е. каждый платит сейчас по £906), в анкете все так же упоминается joint application от супругов. Текущие цены на услуги UK BA можно посмотреть здесь: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...et_Apr_2014.pdf</noindex>

 

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

Заявление на основании прецедента Surinder Singh рассмотрели за 2 нед.

 

Заявление клиента. Рассмотрели за 2 недели. Текущее требование UK BA с отношении «переноса центра жизни» было, в принципе, выполнено. На интервью не вызывали. Срок пребывания в EU составил около 6 месяцев.

 

С своем сопроводительном письме я, тем не менее, ссылался на недавние решения суда в отношении неправомерности UK BA требовать «переноса центра жизни» в EU.

 

Виза – стандартная EEA Family Permit.

 

С продлением теперь проще будет, т.к. в текущей анкете EEA2 уже есть секция «упрощенного» продления для тех заявителей, что получили первичный EEA FP на основании Surinder Singh.

 

Если есть вопросы – спрашивайте.

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

Кто не успел – тот опоздал – нелегалы, читайте (брак)

 

На основании The Immigration Act 2014 c 14 июля 2014 года ЗАГСы и UK BA получили больше прав «рассматривать под лупой» заявления брачующихся иностранцев. Простым языком у ЗАГСов теперь больше возможностей «доложить» UK BA о том или ином «подозрительном» браке + вводятся дополнительные проверки и сроки рассмотрения заявления о браке в таких случаях увеличиваются = ужесточается контроль над браками между иммигрантами.

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

Кошмар иммигранта: Detention of persons with statutorily extended leave

 

Written Ministerial Statement of 26 June 2014

 

Detention of persons with statutorily extended leave, Written Ministerial Statement of 26 June 2014

 

Persons whose leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect will be liable to be detained or to report to the Home Office despite having statutorily extended leave under s 3D of the Immigration Act 1971

 

То есть тех, кому (незаконно) отказали в визе/аннулировали визу и кто ждет слушания своего дела в суде в Великобритании, хотят приравнять к нелегалам с требованием ходить отмечаться в полиции и, как в случае с нелегалами, быть задержанными и помещенными в специальные центры (IDC) для (нелегальных) иммигрантов, ожидающих высылки из Великобритании.

 

Однако.

 

Ссылка на первоисточник: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...extended-leave</noindex>

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

Статистика по депортации из UK по годам: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org/files/deport%20stat.pdf</noindex>

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

Measures to limit migrants’ access to benefits - Commons Library Standard Note

 

Полезная информация для граждан EU, кто рассчитывает получать соц. помощь в Великобритании.

 

 

<noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/s...ess-to-benefits</noindex>

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

Statement of changes in Immigration Rules 10 July 2014

 

These changes will implement restrictions on the ability of those already present in the UK as a Tier 4 (Student) or Tier 1 (Post Study Work) migrant to make an in-country application for an extension of stay as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur).

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...9137/hc-532.pdf</noindex>

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

Лимит в £18 600 остается в силе:

 

E-mail из UK BA:

 

"Today, 11 July 2014, a major Court of Appeal judgement upheld the lawfulness of the minimum income threshold under the new family migration rules.

 

The minimum income threshold for British citizens to sponsor a non-EEA spouse or partner and children to come to live in the UK was introduced in July 2012. It aims to ensure that family migrants do not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and are able to integrate effectively.

 

The minimum income threshold was set, following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 for sponsoring a spouse or partner, rising to £22,400 for also sponsoring a child and an additional £2,400 for each further child.

 

Today's judgement overturns an earlier High Court judgement from July 2013, which was supportive of the approach but found that the impact of the minimum income threshold on family life could be disproportionate.

 

The judgement will mean that, from the 28 July, the 4,000 individuals whose applications are currently on hold, pending this judgement, will now receive a decision. These are cases which met all the requirements apart from the minimum income threshold and now stand to be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances.

 

Home Office Communications".

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

UK BA выплатил £125 000 компенсации за отказ во въезде в UK и нелегальное задержание

 

Radha Naran Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 501 (Admin) (30 July 2014)

 

Radha Naran Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 501 (Admin) (30 July 2014)

Permission to bring the judicial review was given by Clive Lewis QC sitting as judge and judge Anthony Thornton QC dealt with the case.

 

An award of £125,000 in general, aggravated and exemplary damages for this young woman denied entry as a visitor and detained on the basis that she was coming, unlawfully, to work. Includes the observations:

 

69. ...the notes were not a contemporary record of Radha's preliminary interview. I also conclude that the passage that the SSHD principally rely on to justify the temporary detention and the decision to conduct a further interview, namely: "will help sister sew curtains at home", was never stated by Radha but was instead invented by IO Newton and made to look like an admission that she had made when he subsequently wrote up the notes. I finally conclude that the decision to detain he temporarily was taken solely because IO Newton was determined to refuse Radha leave to enter and wished to take her to a private interview room to force her to admit that she was unlawfully entering to take paid employment.

...

90. The overall conclusion from the absence of any evidence relating to the circumstances in which Radha's case was handed over to IO Newton at 22.30 is that the case was not handed over to him at that time, it had been with him from the outset and that he had invented this evidence so that it would look as if he had had no involvement with her in the earlier stages of her detention.

...

117. CIO Khan's role in the attempted cover-up of the circumstances under which the further interview was conducted and in the absence of any evidence that Radha was intending to be employed is of considerable significance. These matters are dealt with below.

...

118. this evidence is considered as a whole, only one conclusion is possible: Radha's evidence in relation to this interview is to be accepted in its entirety and the SSHD's case about it is to be rejected. Radha was bullied, she never made the admissions attributed to her, she continuously denied she had any intention to work or to help or assist Hansha in sewing curtains and the notes were deliberately written up to record her so-called admissions when it was known that she had not provided answers in that form and was vehemently denying any intention to take employment or to do anything other than visit her family.

133....

Comment:

7. The reference to paragraph 321A of the IRs as being the only basis for cancelling Radha's entry clearance was a material error and both IO Newton and CIO Khan must have known that this statement was erroneous. ..

..

What has never been explained is why CIO Khan was contemplating reissuing the decision so as to give Radha a right of appeal at all. The decision was either sustainable and therefore carried no rights of appeal or, as he had decided, it was not sustainable and should be withdrawn. There was no halfway house save for him to have admitted that it was not sustainable that Radha had changed the purpose of her visit but that, having been granted entry clearance, there had subsequently been a change of circumstances which warranted the cancellation of her leave to enter. That change of circumstances would have had to have been something other than a change of purpose since if there had been a change of purpose, there was no reason to grant her a right of appeal – she already had one.

 

Furthermore, it is incomprehensible for CIO Khan to attempt to negotiate the withdrawal of Radha's judicial review. He was solely concerned with the cancellation of her leave to enter and the refusal of leave to enter, neither of which formed part of the subject-matter of the judicial review. Moreover, it was not his business to become involved in the judicial review – unless for ulterior purposes he wished to have it withdrawn. The on-going judicial review was the concern of the SSHD's legal representative, as an IO he was solely concerned with immigration matters including immigration detention which he had dealt with by granting Radha temporary admission and releasing her from detention.

 

It was also incomprehensible for CIO Khan to have granted Radha temporary admission having withdrawn the decision to refuse her leave to enter and not having issued a further decision re-imposing that refusal on different grounds. Since, as was subsequently held to be the case by the second FtT appeal, no outstanding decision was in place, it was not lawful to release Radha on temporary admission, she could only have been released with 6-months leave to enter.

..

160. CIO Khan's actions and motives on 28 May 2011 – conclusions.In short, the explanatory statement appeared to be a further attempt to cover up the error in issuing the cancellation decision in the first place.

...

163. CIO Khan's "decision" which had the effect of "dismissing Radha's appeal". ...The explanatory statement suggested that CIO Khan reviewed the file in great detail. There is no evidence on the file or on the CID log that this review took place and no reference to it was placed in the hearing bundle or provided to the FtT immigration judge at the hearing of Radha's second appeal. There is no evidence to support the suggestion in the explanatory statement that this review took place and the suggestion appears to have been made in an attempt to provide support for the conclusion that the original decision was lawful. In reality, it would seem that this suggestion that a further review took place is untrue and that the review that is referred to never took place.

...

192.Second refusal decision – conclusion. The inevitable conclusion is that CIO Khan issued the decision in an attempt to manufacture a defence to a judicial review claim that he must have considered would otherwise be likely to succeed.

...

295. It follows not only was Radha credible in stating that she had never made any relevant admission during this interview, as the immigration judge found in the third FtT appeal, but that the decision that she had made those admissions was based on unlawfully and concocted evidence obtained by the principal decision-maker. Thus, the relevant decisions to cancel her leave to enter, to refuse her leave to enter, to detain her in immigration detention, to continue to impound her passport and to remove her as soon as possible from the UK were all ultra vires, unlawful, irrational, unreasonable, based on extraneous considerations and in breach of the SSHD's policies concerning administrative detention.

...

311.The explanation for the nature and content of CIO Khan's instructions to the Treasury Solicitor can only be that he was again seeking to cover up the unlawful nature of the decisions taken by IO Newton.

312. Fresh decision. The fresh decision should never have been issued and was, as the third FtT appeal demonstrated, unlawful in any event. It should never have been issued since its ulterior purpose was to be used as a means of misleading the Administrative Court, it had no prospects of success since it was based on the same facts as the original decisions yet it could only be justified if fresh facts had come to light since the decision of 28 May 2011 which showed that there was a change of circumstances since the deemed leave to enter had been granted on 28 May 2011 and it was issued by CIO Khan with full knowledge that the only evidence that Radha intended to seek paid employment was concocted and unlawful.

...

317. ...(14) All these actions, decisions and omissions were intended by the CIOs and the IO or IOs who were responsible for them intended to procure unlawfully decisions from the FtT and fro this judicial review that would have confirmed the unlawful decisions that they had previously taken and to cover up the unlawful features of those decisions.

 

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

The NHS has released its implementation plan for migrant costs recovery, available here: Visitor & Migrant NHS Cost Recovery Programme Implementation Plan 2014–16: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...lan_Phase_3.PDF</noindex>

 

The English language test for long term residents of a country listed by the Home Office as having no approved A1 English test is withdrawn: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...h_exemption.pdf</noindex>

 

The Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2014, SI 2014/1943 (C. 89), 28 July 2014 deals with the opening of current bank accounts for persons under immigration control. Into effect 12 December 2014. Bankers are clearly considered deserving of more notice than lawyers :http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111119105

 

Interesting letter by the Minister to Lord Taylor, identifying two new scenarios in which an application could succeed under the Adult Dependent Relatives route: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org/files/ADDREL.pdf</noindex>

 

 

 

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

Immigration Digest 08/14

 

Очень много изменений - 15 страниц получилось в СЖАТОЙ ФОРМЕ, выношу в отдельный файл для загрузки: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org/files/Immigrati...igest%2008.docx</noindex>

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

Теперь без права апелляции – заявление по почте в UK BA

 

Напоминаю подающим заявления в UK BA по почте на основании UK Immigration Law (заявления по категориям Tier 1-5, FLM, FLRO, SETO, SETM и т.п.), что с конца июля 2014 в случае отказа заявители не имеют права оспорить такие отказы в суде (IAC). Вместо этого в случае отказа у заявителя есть право попросить UK BA пересмотреть решение об отказе. Учитывая, что такая просьба будет рассматриваться той же организацией, что и выдала отказ, я скептически отношусь к шансам на успех таких заявлений на пересмотр.

 

Право апелляции осталось у просителей убежища или гуманитарной защиты. Простым языком – у беженцев.

 

Для граждан EU и членов их семей ничего не изменилось – право апелляции у них остается, т.к. их заявления (EEA1-EEA4) подаются не на основании UK Immigration Law, а на основании Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006.

 

Получается, что для подающих заявления в UK BA на основании UK Immigration Law безопасней и, честно говоря, быстрее (т.е. как бы есть «второй шанс») подавать заявления в личном визите через UK BA Premium Service Centre (то, что раньше называлось PEO = Public Enquiry Office). В случае отказа через PEO есть возможность перепадать заявление до окончания визы (в случае почтового отказа отказ зачастую приходит через несколько месяцев после окончания визы).

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

New guidance on general grounds for refusal, 27 August 2014

 

New modernised guidance on general grounds for refusal

 

Refusal and Refusal wording

Considering leave to remain

Considering Entry Clearance

 

- <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...entry-clearance</noindex>

 

- <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...leave-to-remain</noindex>

 

- <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...refusal-wording</noindex>

 

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

Обратился клиент. Подавал заявление EEA4 на основании развода (Retained Right of Residence) через одну контору. Получил отказ.

 

Вводные данные. Развод был через 5 лет, но не было доказательств работы и проживания ex-спонсора в Великобритании в течение 5 лет. Были только стандратные доказательства для RRR по категории EEA2, т.е. 3 года в браке, развод и работа ОБОИХ во время развода.

 

Я ранее писал о EEA case-law, где non-EEA может получить Permanent Residence после развода (на основании RRR) ПОСЛЕ 5 лет проживания в стране, и тогда не нужно показывать работу и проживание ex-спонсора в Великобритании.

 

Рекомендовал клиенту показать (документы были) документы, что ОН прожил в Великобритани 5 лет, но рекомендовал подавать анкету EEA2 (в таком случае есть 2 шанса, т.е. если UK BA примет нашу версию - то можно получить Permanent Residence, если нет - то тогда RRR на 5 лет; если просто подать EEA4 - то тогда "выбора" у UK BA нет). Со стороны ex-спонсора были только зарплатные квитанции за период, когда оформлялся развод.

 

Через 1.5 месяца получили Permanent Residence.

 

Делюсь опытом.

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

<ВИР> Immigration Digest 09/14

 

UK BA about Child Investors

 

Q: “…according to the Bank, the child cannot hold an investment portfolio legally at the age of 16 and therefore the portfolio must be set up in the name of the parent and the child, unless the child is 18 years of age.

 

The Tier 1 guidance does not on the face of it allow this…is there any way around this?”.

 

UK BA:

 

“There is not any obvious way around this. It is an ongoing requirement of the Immigration Rules that the funds and investment must be wholly under the applicant’s control. A portfolio set up in their parent’s name would not meet this requirement. While the child may turn 18 before they need to apply for an extension, the requirement is an ongoing one and a caseworker at extension will look back at the whole history to establish that the investment has been maintained continuously. Technically, they would also be liable to curtailment while the funds are not invested solely under their control.

 

We are looking at the wider issue here. We do emphasise the control of funds/investment point as much as we can already. However, if it is the case that those under 18 cannot invest in the permitted forms of investment in the UK, this may argue for raising the qualifying age to 18. But it is not clear that the same rules apply in Scotland (where, for example, you can enter a legally binding contract at age 16) as in the rest of the UK.”.

 

UK BA and Landlords

 

The government has announced the area: Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall and Sandwell and the date: 1 December 2014 where it will start to implement Part 3 Chapter 1 of the Immigration Act 2014, the provisions on residential tenancies. It has also produced a draft code of practice and a “right to rent tool” that landlords and landladies allegedly will use (instead of just renting to some nice chap with a British passport): <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...of_Practice.pdf</noindex>

 

Long Residence guidance

 

From 28 July, the guidance on the 10-year private life route (which was previously combined with the guidance on long residence) is at: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...es_guidance.pdf</noindex>

 

UK BA on a fiancé(e) travelling on honeymoon before applying for a spouse visa:

UK BA: “A spouse or civil partner can re-enter the UK following a honeymoon abroad during the remaining validity of their entry clearance as a fiancé(e)/PCP if they can satisfy the IO, in the light of the change in their marital/CP status (which they should evidence with a copy of the marriage/CP certificate), of their intention, within the remaining validity of that entry clearance, to regularise their status in the UK as a spouse/CP.”.

 

Tier 2 and Tier 5 Guidance for Sponsors

 

UK Visas and Immigration, Home Office, Tier 2 and 5 of the Points Based System - Guidance for Sponsors for applications made on or after 4 September 2014

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...dance_09-14.pdf</noindex>

 

House of Commons Library Standard Note 12 September 2014: Unemployment by ethnic background:

 

<noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/publicat...hnic-background</noindex>

 

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Family Court proceedings-outcome) Mohammed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKUT 00419 (IAC) 21 July 2014

 

Whilst it may be that in the Family Court jurisdiction prior to the coming into force on 22 April 2014 of the Children and Families Act 2014 there was always the possibility of a parent making a fresh application relating to contact, there is nothing in the guidance given in RS (Immigration and Family Court) India [2012] UKUT 00218 (IAC) (which was approved by the Court of Appeal inMohan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1363) that supports the notion that the mere possibility of such an application being made (or pursued) is a relevant criterion in the case of an immigration appeal when deciding whether to adjourn an appeal or to direct a grant of discretionary leave in order for such proceedings to be pursued. The guidance is concerned with whether there is a realistic prospect of the Family Court making a decision that will have a material impact on the relationship between a child and the parent facing immigration measures such as deportation.

 

 

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

Immigration Directorate Instructions Chapter 13: criminality guidance in Article 8 ECHR cases, 28 July 2014

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...le-8-echr-cases</noindex>

 

Immigration Act 2014: residential tenancies and Draft Code of Practice on Illegal Immigrants and privately rented accommodation: civil penalty scheme for landlords and their agents and "right to rent tool", 3 September 2014

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...of_Practice.pdf</noindex>

Right to Rent Tool: <noindex>https://eforms.homeoffice.gov.uk/outreach/l...pplication.ofml</noindex>

 

Powers of Immigration Officers: Criminal investigation guidance: powers under Crime & Courts Act 2013 [s 55], Modernised Guidance, 15 August 2014

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...er_v3.0_EXT.pdf</noindex>

 

Transparency data from Home Office for Border Force and for Migration, 28 August 2014

 

Positively Orwellian title. Obscured behind the word "transparency" you have "transparency" data on

•Asylum

•Border Force

•Customer Service Operations

•Historical interest

•International Operations

•Sponsorship

•Temporary Permanent Migration

 

 

UK Visas and Immigration Home page on gov.uk

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations...and-immigration</noindex>

 

Long Residence Guidance has been moved to: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...es_guidance.pdf</noindex>

 

Home Office Travel document interview process and prosecution under section 35 version 3.0 valid from 3 September 2014

Modernised guidance for how UK Visas and Immigration refers cases for prosecution under the asylum and immigration act 2004.

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...nder-section-35</noindex>

 

New guidance on general grounds for refusal, 27 August 2014

•Refusal and Refusal wording

•Considering leave to remain

•Considering Entry Clearance

 

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...entry-clearance</noindex>

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...leave-to-remain</noindex>

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...refusal-wording</noindex>

 

UK Visas and Immigration: Criminal Investigation Guidance for Witness Summons, Modernised Guidance version 1, 21 August 2014

Stated to be based on the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013, "This guidance tells criminal investigators in immigration enforcement investigation teams what a witness summons is and how they can apply for one"

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...witness-summons</noindex>

 

Conditional cautions with foreign offender conditions, version 6 of 31 July with an 18 August 2014 update (unspecified)

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...reign-offenders</noindex>

 

From the UK BA: Fiancés and PCPs may travel on honeymoon without first having to apply for leave to remain as a spouse.

“A spouse or civil partner can re-enter the UK following a honeymoon abroad during the remaining validity of their entry clearance as a fiancé(e)/PCP if they can satisfy the IO, in the light of the change in their marital/CP status (which they should evidence with a copy of the marriage/CP certificate), of their intention, within the remaining validity of that entry clearance, to regularise their status in the UK as a spouse/CP.”.

 

MG (prison-Article 28(3) (a) of Citizens Directive) Portugal [2014] UKUT 00392 (IAC)

 

(1) Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC contains the requirement that for those who have resided in the host member state for the previous 10 years, an expulsion

decision made against them must be based upon imperative grounds of public security.

(2) There is a tension in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-400/12 Secretary of State v MG in respect of the meaning of

the “enhanced protection” provision.

(3) The judgment should be understood as meaning that a period of imprisonment during those 10 years does not necessarily prevent a person from qualifying for

enhanced protection if that person is sufficiently integrated. However, according to the same judgment, a period of imprisonment must have a negative impact in so far

as establishing integration is concerned.

 

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...