Важные судебные решения и новости для иммигрантов

[British Lawyer]

Работать бесплатно = работать = проблемы с UK BA

 

Что и подтвердил суд:

 

R (on the application of Kuruwitage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 0402 (IAC)

 

This is a judicial review which was heard and promulgated before the Court of Appeal judgment in Mehmood & Anor, R (On the Applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744 (14 July 2015) but has only been published after that judgment which gives more authoritative guidance.

 

The claimant had leave as a Tier 4 student with a condition prohibiting employment. He was arrested and admitted under caution to undertaking unpaid voluntary work for 20 hours per week in breach of that condition. The Court held that the Home Office did not act ultra vires in seeking to remove the claimant under section 10(1)(a) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for breaching a condition attached to his limited leave rather than consider curtailing that leave giving rise to an in-country right of appeal. An out-of-country remedy was found to be sufficient in this case and the judicial review was dismissed.

[British Lawyer]

The £35,000 salary requirement to settle in the UK

 

Брифинг для парламента: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7264</noindex>

 

Ну и для тех, кто еще не знал.

 

[British Lawyer]

UK Asylum Support Application Form link: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/…/atta…/file/261498/asylumsupportform.pdf</noindex>

 

Возможно, кому-то пригодится.

[British Lawyer]

Внимание ! Отмена т.н. Established Status для студентов с 11-11-2015

 

Ссылка: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...68024/hc439.pdf</noindex>

 

Что меняется.

 

Ранее студентам, кто отучился в UK от 6 и более месяцев позволялось при продлении показывать т.н. maintenance в размере 2-х месячной суммы.

 

С 11 ноября 2015 года т.н. established student status отменяется и при продлении визы студенту нужно будет показывать т.н. maintenance в размере 9-и месячной суммы.

 

Обратите внимание.

[British Lawyer]

Новые EEA формы:

 

The UK BA has introduced slightly shorter EEA(FM) and EEA(EFM) forms have been introduced: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card/apply</noindex>

 

The previous EEA(FM) weighed in at some 137 pages and the new ones at a mere 76 and 91 pages. That is still far, far too long, though, and far, far longer than the forms they replaced. It is also far longer than the UK domestic equivalent forms.

 

Is it has been in the past, the use of these EEA forms is optional, not mandatory.

[British Lawyer]

UK BA решил не возвращать сертификаты Life in the UK

 

Раньше такого не встречал.

 

Получили очередной approval по заявлению клиентки и ее ребенка на гражданство.

 

UK BA пишет, что "It is Home Office policy not to return a Life in the UK Pass Notification Letter where a person is granted British citizenship. In accordance with this policy, your Pass Notification Letter has been retained".

 

Обратите внимание.

[fregat222]

МВД Британии россиянам: правила въезда одни для всех

 

Британская пограничная служба обязана проверять граждан других стран, въезжающих на территорию страны, на наличие у них соответствующей визы и сопутствующих документов, сообщило в письме британское министерство внутренних дел Русской службе Би-би-си.

Пограничники также должны убедиться, что условия, на которых была получена виза, остаются в силе, и личные обстоятельства ее держателя не изменились. Это включает в себя проверку сведений, предоставленных при получении британской визы, говорится в сообщении Хоум-офиса.

Виза может быть аннулирована, если в обстоятельствах человека или в цели его поездки произошли изменения. "Большинству пассажиров с визами при прохождении проверки не приходится долго ждать", - отмечается в письме.

Накануне российское посольство в Великобритании опубликовало на своем сайте рекомендации российским гражданам, планирующим посетить Британию. "Наличие действующей визы не является гарантией, что у британских иммиграционных властей не возникнет к [российским гражданам] дополнительных вопросов по прибытии в страну", - говорится в них.

В качестве примера посольство описывало случай в лондонском аэропорту, когда "без особых на то оснований была задержана прибывшая рейсом из Москвы гражданка Российской Федерации", после чего ее якобы продержали на границе более семи часов.

 

"Среди прочего британцев интересовало, сколько денег имеет при себе наша соотечественница, как наличными, так и на банковской карте", - говорится в сообщении посольства.

Российская дипломатическая миссия заявила, что подобные методы могут применяться и впредь "в качестве инструмента психологического давления и политической игры в контексте нынешнего состояния наших двусторонних отношений".

В сообщении посольства не приводилось ни имени россиянки, ни того, в каком статусе она прибыла в Британию, ни даты, когда случился инцидент, ни названия аэропорта.

Простая россиянка?

На обращение Русской службы Би-би-си о комментарии остановленной на границе россиянки в российском посольстве заявили, что она отказалась общаться с прессой. Ранее посольство сообщало, что готово оказать содействие в установлении контакта с ней.

В свою очередь в британском МИДе сообщили, что не комментируют индивидуальные случаи.

 

Позже в некоторых российских СМИ и блогах появились рассуждения о том, что посольство едва ли стало бы реагировать подобным образом на жалобу простых граждан. Об этом, в частности, написал в своем "Твиттере" Алексей Навальный.

На что ему ответил посол России в Великобритании Александр Яковенко, написавший в своем блоге, что речь идет о "простой гражданке России", а посольство готово оказать помощь при возникновении подобных проблем и Навальному.

Аналогичная запись затем появилась на сайте российского посольства. "Хотели бы подтвердить, что случай этот не единичный (намереваемся предать гласности и иные аналогичные нарушения прав наших граждан)", - заявила дипмиссия.

 

Яковенко также написал в "Твиттере", что британские власти "выдавливают российских дипломатов", устраивая им всевозможные бюрократические придирки в вопросе выдачи виз, из-за чего уменьшается число работников в посольстве. По мнению посла, это не соответствует международным обязательствам.

На просьбу Русской службы Би-би-си прокомментировать заявление посла министерство внутренних дел Британии сообщило, что заявление Хоум-офиса относительно проверки российских граждан на границе в равной мере касается и этой ситуации.

На прошлой неделе глава британского правительства Дэвид Кэмерон объявил о начале масштабной кампании по борьбе с иностранными коррупционерами, покупающими в Британии дорогую недвижимость.

Этому предшествовал выход на британском телевидении документального фильма "Из России с наличными", подставные герои которого, выдавая себя за российских чиновников, пытались заключить с риэлторами соглашения о тайной продаже домов за деньги, похищенные из российского бюджета.

 

 

]]>Источник]]>

[British Lawyer]

Immigration law update August 2015

 

Case-law:

 

- Tigere, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57

Paragraph 49

 

“the appellant is clearly entitled to a declaration that the application of the settlement criterion to her is a breach of her rights under article 14, read with article A2P1, of the Convention. ...Such a declaration would leave the department in no doubt that this appellant is entitled to a student loan, while leaving it open to the Secretary of State to devise a more carefully tailored criterion which will avoid breaching the Convention rights of other applicants, now and in the future.”

 

-MAB (para 399; “unduly harsh”) USA [2015] UKUT 00435 (IAC)

 

1.The phrase “unduly harsh” in para 399 of the Rules (and s.117C(5) of the 2002 Act) does not import a balancing exercise requiring the public interest to be weighed against the circumstances of the individual (whether child or partner of the deportee). The focus is solely upon an evaluation of the consequences and impact upon the individual concerned.

 

2. Whether the consequences of deportation will be “unduly harsh” for an individual involves more than “uncomfortable, inconvenient, undesirable, unwelcome or merely difficult and challenging” consequences and imposes a considerably more elevated or higher threshold.

 

3. The consequences for an individual will be “harsh” if they are “severe” or “bleak” and they will be “unduly” so if they are ‘inordinately’ or ‘excessively’ harsh taking into account of all the circumstances of the individual.

 

-Yusuf (EEA - ceasing to be a jobseeker; effect) [2015] UKUT 00433 (IAC)

 

An individual who has acquired the status of worker for the purposes of article 45 (ex Article 3) TFEU) (and thus regulation 4 (1) (a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006) only through being a jobseeker, who is a qualified person under regulation 6(1)(a), does not retain the status of worker on ceasing to be a jobseeker. In such a scenario, the purpose in interpreting article 45 widely – to give effect to the right to move to another member state to seek employment – is absent.

 

The term ‘worker’ within article 45 covers, to a greater or lesser extent, not only actual workers but also:

 

(1) those entering a state for the first time to seek employment (‘first-time’ job seekers’)

(2) those who have had a job and are again seeking work (‘second-time job seekers’)

(3) vocational or occupational trainees; the involuntarily unemployed and sick;

(4) injured and retired workers; and,

(5) women who, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, give up work or jobseeking, provided they return to work or find another job within a reasonable period after the birth of the child.

 

- R (on the application of Bilal Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00436 (IAC)

 

(1) The fact that P (who is not an EEA national) has a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 against an EEA decision to refuse P a residence card does not have the effect of precluding the Secretary of State from removing P under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

 

(2) Section 92(4)( of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as it was before the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014) does not afford P an in-country right of appeal against the section 10 decision, where the issue of whether P is a member of the family of an EEA national is a matter of dispute.

 

(3) The factual issue of whether P is a family member falls to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal on appeal by P against the EEA decision and/or the section 10 decision, whether or not P may by then be outside the United Kingdom. A judicial review by P of the decision to remove and/or the setting of removal directions will not succeed where P’s application is based on marriage to an EEA national, if the Secretary of State reasonably suspects P of being a party to a marriage of convenience.

 

- R (on the application of Oyekan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00410(IAC)

Judicial Review dismissed; evidential requirements for proxy marriages under EEA law following Kareem and TA and Others (Kareem explained) Ghana discussed.

 

-R (on the application of Chirairo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00411 (IAC)

 

Successful judicial review challenging refusal of leave to remain on the basis of inconsistent treatment with the claimant’s sister.

 

In 2006, the claimant and his sister were accepted as dependents on their father’s application for leave to remain as a student when their appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal taking into account the fact that the claimant had turned 18 years. The Home Office did not appeal and subsequently granted 5 months leave to the whole family. When the claimant’s father then applied for leave to remain as work permit holder, the family were granted leave as his dependents but the claimant was refused. In subsequent applications, the claimant’s parents were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain and his sister, who was by this time over 18 years, Discretionary Leave to Remain. The challenge was brought against refusal of the claimant’s application for Discretionary Leave to Remain in 2012 highlighting the distinction made between his case and that of his sister.

 

Judicial review was granted, the Tribunal holding: “This decision was only explicable on the basis that the Home Office had chosen, rather than following or appealing the judge’s decision, to side step it by granting a short period of leave and then disregarding it. That amounted to a clear disregard of the statutory appellate procedure and the decision must be set aside.”

 

- R (on the application of Hamasour) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (supplementary decision letter – effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00414 (IAC)

 

The decision in Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design [2001] EWHC 538 (Admin) may provide a useful tool on the issue of whether a supplementary decision letter amounts to a fresh decision, or whether it merely supplements the decision already made, and in relation to matters to be considered in terms of the effect of such a supplementary decision letter.

 

-Iqbal (Para 322 Immigration Rules) [2015] UKUT 00434 (IAC)

 

(i) The effect of the words “are to be refused” in paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules is to render refusal of leave to remain the United Kingdom obligatory in cases where any of the listed grounds arises. The decision maker has no discretion.

 

(ii) The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations is a nuanced, sophisticated one which should not be prayed in aid without careful reflection.

-NA and VA (protection: Article 7(2) Qualification Directive) India [2015] UKUT 00432 (IAC)

 

The word “generally” in Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the Qualification Directive) denotes normally or in the generality of cases. Thus the operation of an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and access to such system by the claimant may not, in a given case, amount to protection. Article 7(2) is non-prescriptive in nature. It prescribes neither minima nor maxima. The duty imposed on states to take “reasonable steps” imports the concepts of margin of appreciation and proportionality.

 

-R (on the application of GB by litigation friend, Francesco Jeff) v Oxfordshire County Council (age dispute- relevance of documents) IJR [2015] UKUT 00429 (IAC)

 

The duty of the Tribunal in disputed age assessments is to consider the evidence as a whole, including documentary evidence relied upon, even where there are a number of documents produced purporting to verify the claimed age. SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157 considered.

 

-Jobseekers who do not find a job are not workers finds Upper Tribunal

 

Fortunately, the Upper Tribunal has clarified a pressing issue of European Union law for us in the case of Yusuf (EEA – ceasing to be a jobseeker; effect) [2015] UKUT 433 (IAC):

 

An individual who has acquired the status of worker for the purposes of article 45 (ex Article 3) TFEU) (and thus regulation 4 (1) (a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006) only through being a jobseeker, who is a qualified person under regulation 6(1)(a), does not retain the status of worker on ceasing to be a jobseeker. In such a scenario, the purpose in interpreting article 45 widely – to give effect to the right to move to another member state to seek employment – is absent.

 

The term ‘worker’ within article 45 covers, to a greater or lesser extent, not only actual workers but also:

(1) those entering a state for the first time to seek employment (‘first-time’ job seekers’)

(2) those who have had a job and are again seeking work (‘second-time job seekers’)

(3) vocational or occupational trainees; the involuntarily unemployed and sick;

(4) injured and retired workers; and,

(5) women who, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, give up work or jobseeking, provided they return to work or find another job within a reasonable period after the birth of the child.

 

[British Lawyer]

The case of N v SSHD will stand.

 

The Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal in the linked medical treatment cases on Article 3 ECHR with the words:

 

“With regret, the Panel can foresee no reasonable prospect of this Court departing from N v SSHD.”.

 

In the Court of Appeal the cases were GS (India), EO (Ghana), GM (India), PL (Jamaica), BA (Ghana) & KK (DRC) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40. The four whose appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and who suffer from end stage kidney disease now face an early and unpleasant death within weeks following their removal from the United Kingdom. The others face very uncertain prospects as they try to obtain some form of treatment.

 

[fregat222]

Приток мигрантов в Британию бьет все рекорды

 

Миграция в Британию достигла рекордного уровня, ощутимо превысив показатели предыдущего пика, достигнутого в начале 2000-х годов, сообщает Национальное управление статистики.

За 12 месяцев в страну прибыло на длительный срок проживания 600 тысяч человек – втрое больше запланированного правительством. За вычетом убывших из страны прирост населения за счет миграции составил, по данным на конец финансового года (31 марта), 330 тысяч человек. Это на 94 тысячи больше, чем годом ранее.

Таким образом, с марта прошлого года рост составил 28%, отмечается в докладе управления.

Данная статистика учитывает только число официальных мигрантов, въехавших в страну на легальных основаниях. В качестве долгосрочных мигрантов рассматриваются те, кто прибывает в страну как минимум на год и для кого Британия становится по сути их основным местом пребывания.

Число прошений об убежище, поданных за го, выросло на 10% и достигло 26 тысяч. Большинство просителей родом из Эритреи, Пакистана и Сирии.

Министр по делам миграции Джеймс Брокеншир назвал эту статистику неутешительной.

"Миграция в Европе достигла сегодня масштабов, невиданных со времен окончания Второй мировой войны", - констатировал чиновник.

Консервативное правительство Дэвида Кэмерона прежде неоднократно заявляло о своих планах об ужесточении миграционной политики, обещая сократить поток мигрантов как минимум вдвое.

По мнению оппозиции, опубликованная статистика свидетельствует о тотальной неспособности нынешних британских властей справиться с наплывом мигрантов.

Согласно официальным данным, в 2014 году 13% жителей Британии, или 8,3 млн человек, были рождены за пределами страны - это наивысший показатель за все время наблюдений.

 

Показатели так называемой чистой миграции растут уже пятый квартал подряд.

Из других стран-членов ЕС в Британию за 12 месяцев прибыло (за вычетом уехавших) 183 тысячи мигрантов - на 53 тысячи больше, чем за аналогичный период 2014 года. Практически весь этот прирост был обеспечен за счет граждан Румынии и Болгарии, которые с этого года получили право прибывать в Британию без каких-либо ограничений.

Читый приток мигрантов из стран, не входящих в Евросоюз, оказалось еще больше - 196 тысячи человек.

Доминирует Азия

В докладе Национального управления статистики отмечается, что за год с июня 2014 по июнь нынешнего года в Британию въехало на длительное проживание рекордное количество китайцев - почти 90 тысяч человек. На втором месте Индия - более 86 тысяч.

Суммарно, абсолютное большинство притока мигрантов из-за пределов Европы обеспечивают азиатские страны.

Россия входит в первую десятку стран по числу долгосрочных мигрантов, прибывающих в Британию, хотя за отчетный год поток россиян сократился более чем на 5 тысяч.

Среди ключевых факторов, способствующих росту чистой миграции в Британии, называют продолжающийся в стране экономический рост и расширение ЕС.

 

Число выданных въездных виз в Соединенное Королевство (не считая туристических/гостевых и транзитных), тыс.

Китай 89,593

Индия 86,117

США 35,966

Австралия 21,389

Саудовская Аравия 18,646

Пакистан 18,488

Нигерия 16,794

Россия 15,025

Турция 13,553

Филиппины 12,662

 

При этом число жителей Британии, покидающих страну, за год сократилось на девять тысяч человек.

Поляки - самая многочисленная национальная община среди выходцев из стран-членов ЕС: их в стране проживает 853 тысячи человек, включая и тех, кто родился в Британии.

 

Среди выходцев из стран, не входящих в ЕС, больше всего в Британии индийцев – 793 тысячи человек.

В целом 8,5% населения Британии, или 5,3 млн человек, не являются гражданами страны.

Из общего числа мигрантов трудоспособного возраста примерно 7% претендуют на различные пособия и государственную помощь.

За прошлый год в Британию прибыло на длительный срок проживания 53 тысячи граждан Болгарии и Румынии – почти в два раза больше, чем годом ранее.

 

За год с июня прошлого года по июнь нынешний было подано более 25 тысяч ходатайств о предоставлении убежища – на 10% больше, чем годом ранее.

за тот же период было удовлетворено 11600 ходатайств, сообщает британское Национальное управление статистики.

Ранее на этой неделе правительство обнародовало детали нового законопроекта о миграции, который будет представлен на рассмотрение парламента осенью нынешнего года.

Согласно планам, нелегальные мигранты, работающие в Британии, могут быть приговорены к заключению сроком до полугода, в то время как магазины и предприятия общественного питания, нанимающие нелегалов, будут закрыты.

В то же время британские домовладельцы обязаны будут выселять квартирантов, потерявших право жить в стране.

 

 

 

]]>Источник]]>

[fregat222]

Британия вводит новые меры против нелегальной иммиграции

 

Премьер-министр Великобритании Дэвид Кэмерон объявил о новых жестких мерах в борьбе с нелегальной иммиграцией.

Дэвид Кэмерон, выступивший в министерстве внутренних дел с заявлением об ужесточении миграционной политики, пообещал, что правительство будет тщательно контролировать и сокращать миграцию.

Кабинет министров, в частности, намерен объявить для иностранных мигрантов работу в стране без соответствующей рабочей визы или другого официального разрешения уголовным преступлением.

Заработанные таким образом деньги будут конфискованы.

Согласно существующему законодательству, фирмам, нанимающим нелегальных мигрантов, грозит штраф до 20 тыс. фунтов стерлингов (31 тыс. долларов). Теперь же ответственными перед законом будут и сами нелегальные мигранты, нанимающиеся на работу.

Кэмерон добавил, что приравнивание нелегальной работы к уголовному преступлению должно сопровождаться мерами, направленными на искоренение спроса на труд нелегальных мигрантов.

Правительство убеждено, что конфискация зарплат нелегальных мигрантов затруднит их пребывание в Великобритании.

Уголовное преследование

Новый закон, преследующий за нелегальную работу, коснется не только нелегальных мигрантов, но и тех, кто въехал в страну на законных основаниях, но решил остаться после истечения срока визы или же нарушил условия выданной визы, ограничивающие право на работу.

 

На данный момент иностранцы, находящиеся в стране легально, но нарушающие запрет или ограничения на работу, могут быть привлечены к суду и приговорены к шести месяцам заключения, однако заработанные ими деньги не могут быть конфискованы.

Существующее законодательство в этой сфере пока вообще не распространяется на нелегальных иммигрантов, и их доходы тем более не могут быть изъяты.

Дэвид Кэмерон пообещал эту ситуацию изменить.

Однако адвокат Сайра Грант из Совместного совета социальной защиты иммигрантов выражает сомнения в эффективности новых мер контроля.

"Эти зарплаты будут конфискованы задним числом? Не стоит забывать, что речь часто идет об очень бедных людях, пытающихся прокормить свою семью", - говорит она.

Правительство также намерено предоставить местным советам право выселять нелегальных мигрантов. Все преступники-иностранцы, вышедшие из тюрьмы, будут обязаны носить электронные браслеты в ожидании своей депортации.

Рост миграции

В 2010 году новоизбранное правительство Дэвида Кэмерона обещало сократить уровень миграции в Великобританию, заявляя, что сальдо миграции не должно превышать 100 тыс. человек в год.

 

Бюро национальной статистики опубликовало данные о миграции за 2014 год, согласно которым миграционное сальдо достигло 318 тыс. человек, что на 109 тыс. больше, чем в 2013 году.

Число мигрантов почти достигло рекордного уровня, зафиксированного в 2005 году.

Согласно этим данным, в 2014 году:

641 тыс. человек прибыли в Великобританию. 323 тыс. покинули страну.

284 тыс. человек мигрировали в Великобританию в поисках работы, что на 70 тыс. больше, чем в предыдущем году.

Число граждан Румынии и Болгарии, прибывших в Великобританию, удвоилось в 2014 году и достигло 46 тыс. человек.

За период с января по март 2015 года число граждан стран ЕС, работающих в Великобритании, по сравнению с прошлым годом увеличилось на 283 тыс. человек.

 

 

]]>Источник]]>

[British Lawyer]

Immigration digest September 2015

 

•Comments on the statement of changes HC 297: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...596_hc_297.pdf</noindex>

 

This Statement of Changes in immigration rules appeared on 13 July 2015 and came partially into effect on 14 July and 3 August 2015, with the remaining provisions coming into effect on 12 November 2015. Its main focus is students but it makes other significant changes.

 

Changes that took effect on 3 August 2015 mean that administrative review is withdrawn if a person makes a fresh application. This means that 3C leave ends for those in the UK. It means that a person is unable to pursue the correction of an error and thus remove a blot on their immigration history at the same time as moving forward with their application to come to the UK. It is presented in the Explanatory Memorandum to HC 297 as helpful. It hardly is.

New students at publicly funded further education colleges who apply after 12 November 2015 will be prevented from being able to work in the UK from 12 November 2015 and students at colleges will be unable to switch to a work visa or extend their study visa whilst they are in the UK. The time limit on further education study will be reduced from three years to two.

 

Other changes affect transit passengers, family and private life and returning residents. For example, applicants under Part 8 who fail to meet the requirements for leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence or as a bereaved partner will be allowed an administrative review. The income of an equity partner, e.g. in a law firm, will be allowed to be included as employment income for the purposes of Appendix FM-SE.

 

•Tier 2 Review

 

The Migration Advisory Committee is consulting on its review of Tier 2. A wide swathe of proposals are canvassed which, if implemented, would change the landscape for those coming to work in the UK. Tier 2 could be restricted to shortage occupations and “highly specialist experts.” Spouses and partners of Tier 2 workers could lose their automatic right to work in the UK. The intra-company transfer route, for so long the safety valve under Tier 2, is now ostensibly in the line of fire.

 

•Right to rent

 

Fuelled by the images from Calais, the Government is pressing ahead with its “hostile environment” agenda. The Immigration Bill is now expected when parliament returns and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has said that it will contain proposals to allow landlords and landladies to evict tenants without leave to be in the UK more easily. A new criminal offence is proposed whereby those who repeatedly fail to conduct the “right to rent” checks or fail to take steps to remove those without leave to be in their property will face up to five years in prison. There will be blacklists of landlords and landladies.

 

•Asylum support

 

The Asylum Support (Amendment No.3) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1501) make dramatic cuts to asylum support for families with children with effect from 10 August 2015. All those receiving asylum support will now get the same weekly allowance of £36.95 per person. The effect is particularly dramatic in single-parent families: a single parent with two children will see their support reduced by over twenty-five per cent.

There will be more changes. The government is consulting on support under sections 95 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Inter alia, it proposes to repeal s 4(1) of the Act which makes provision for support for those granted bail, temporary admission or temporary release or otherwise released from detention and also to end the scheme under which families with children continue to receive s 95 support while they remain in the UK.

 

•Immigration Health Surcharge: common casework questions, House of Commons Library, 6 August 2015: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7274</noindex>

 

•The £35,000 salary requirement to settle in the UK: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7264</noindex>

 

•The UK and the EU: reform, renegotiation, withdrawal? A reading list: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7220</noindex>

 

•Visa Requirements for Tier 1 [Requirement to produce criminal record], House of Commons 20 July 2015: Column 80WS

 

Visa Requirements for Tier 1 [Requirement to produce criminal record], House of Commons 20 July 2015: Column 80WS

The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire): “I am announcing today that from 1 September 2015, individuals who are applying for entry clearance as an entrepreneur or an investor under the tier 1 category will be required to provide a criminal record certificate from any country in which they have lived for 12 months or more in the previous 10 years.

 

Under the previous Government we changed the immigration rules to introduce a requirement to provide an overseas criminal record certificate where that is required. We will introduce this requirement in a controlled way and learn the lessons from implementation as we roll out the requirement to other categories of migrant.”.

 

•According to the recent Customer Service Operations, UK Visas and Immigration response, there is no deadline to lodge a reconsideration request following a refusal of a Naturalization application

 

•Recent Tier1 (Entrepreneur) guidance: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/public...1-entrepreneur</noindex>

[British Lawyer]

Recent case-law, September 2015, Part 1

 

•Beaurish Tigere in R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57 (29 July 2015)

 

Success for The Supreme Court held, by a majority of three to two, that rules rendering persons with limited or discretionary leave for student loans discriminated against her and breached Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read with Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention, the right to education. The Supreme Court held that requiring a person to be settled to be eligible for a student loan was not justified, but that the requirement of three years’ lawful ordinary residence was. The dissenting minority based their decision on the right to education’s not importing a right to financial support. It is left to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skill to devise a more carefully tailored criterion for student finance which will avoid breaching Convention rights of other applicants.

 

•R (on the application of Kuruwitage) v Secretary of State for the Home

Department IJR [2015] UKUT 0402 (IAC)

 

The claimant had leave as a Tier 4 student with a condition prohibiting employment. He was arrested and admitted under caution to undertaking unpaid voluntary work for 20 hours per week in breach of that condition. The Court held that the Home Office did not act ultra vires in seeking to remove the claimant under section 10(1)(a) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for breaching a condition attached to his limited leave rather than consider curtailing that leave giving rise to an in-country right of appeal. An out-of-country remedy was found to be sufficient in this case and the judicial review was dismissed.

 

•R (on the application of Shabani) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Legacy – residence – SOS’s limited duty) IJR [2015] UKUT 0403 (IAC)

 

In giving effect to Chapter 53.1.2 of her Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, the respondent is not required to refer specifically to the particular period of residence. It is sufficient that the respondent can be seen to have been aware of the period of residence when applying the policy to the facts of the particular case.

 

•Forman (ss 117A-C considerations) [2015] UKUT 00412 (IAC)

 

(i)The public interest in firm immigration control is not diluted by the consideration that a person pursuing a claim under Article 8 ECHR has at no time been a financial burden on the state or is self-sufficient or is likely to remain so indefinitely. The significance of these factors is that where they are not present the public interest is fortified.

(ii)The list of considerations contained in section 117B and section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the “2002 Act”) is not exhaustive. A court or tribunal is entitled to take into account additional considerations, provided that they are relevant in the sense that they properly bear on the public interest question.

(iii)In cases where the provisions of sections 117B-117C of the 2002 Act arise, the decision of the Tribunal must demonstrate that they have been given full effect.

 

•R (on the application of Chirairo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00411 (IAC)

 

This is a successful judicial review challenging refusal of leave to remain on the basis of inconsistent treatment with the claimant’s sister.

In 2006, the claimant and his sister were accepted as dependents on their father’s application for leave to remain as a student when their appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal taking into account the fact that the claimant had turned 18 years. The Home Office did not appeal and subsequently granted 5 months leave to the whole family. When the claimant’s father then applied for leave to remain as work permit holder, the family were granted leave as his dependents but the claimant was refused. In subsequent applications, the claimant’s parents were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain and his sister, who was by this time over 18 years, Discretionary Leave to Remain. The challenge was brought against refusal of the claimant’s application for Discretionary Leave to Remain in 2012 highlighting the distinction made between his case and that of his sister.

 

Judicial review was granted, the Tribunal holding: “This decision was only explicable on the basis that the Home Office had chosen, rather than following or appealing the judge’s decision, to side step it by granting a short period of leave and then disregarding it. That amounted to a clear disregard of the statutory appellate procedure and the decision must be set aside.”

 

[British Lawyer]

Recent case-law, September 2015, Part 2

 

•R (on the application of Hamasour) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (supplementary decision letter – effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00414 (IAC)

 

The decision in Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design [2001] EWHC 538 (Admin) may provide a useful tool on the issue of whether a supplementary decision letter amounts to a fresh decision, or whether it merely supplements the decision already made, and in relation to matters to be considered in terms of the effect of such a supplementary decision letter.

 

•MAB (para 399; “unduly harsh”) USA [2015] UKUT 00435 (IAC)

 

1. The phrase “unduly harsh” in para 399 of the Rules (and s.117C(5) of the 2002 Act) does not import a balancing exercise requiring the public interest to be weighed against the circumstances of the individual (whether child or partner of the deportee). The focus is solely upon an evaluation of the consequences and impact upon the individual concerned.

2. Whether the consequences of deportation will be “unduly harsh” for an individual involves more than “uncomfortable, inconvenient, undesirable, unwelcome or merely difficult and challenging” consequences and imposes a considerably more elevated or higher threshold.

3. The consequences for an individual will be “harsh” if they are “severe” or “bleak” and they will be “unduly” so if they are ‘inordinately’ or ‘excessively’ harsh taking into account of all the circumstances of the individual.

(MK (section 55 – Tribunal options) Sierra Leone [2015] UKUT 223 (IAC) at [46] and BM and others (returnees – criminal and non-criminal) DRC CG [2015] UKUT 293 (IAC) at [109] applied.)

 

•R (on the application of Bilal Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home

Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00436 (IAC)

 

(1) The fact that P (who is not an EEA national) has a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 against an EEA decision to refuse P a residence card does not have the effect of precluding the Secretary of State from removing P under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

(2) Section 92(4)( of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as it was before the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014) does not afford P an in-country right of appeal against the section 10 decision, where the issue of whether P is a member of the family of an EEA national is a matter of dispute.

(3) The factual issue of whether P is a family member falls to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal on appeal by P against the EEA decision and/or the section 10 decision, whether or not P may by then be outside the United Kingdom. A judicial review by P of the decision to remove and/or the setting of removal directions will not succeed where P’s application is based on marriage to an EEA national, if the Secretary of State reasonably suspects P of being a party to a marriage of convenience.

 

•R (on the application of Naziri and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR – scope - evidence) IJR [2015] UKUT 00437 (IAC)

 

(i)It is intrinsically undesirable that judicial review proceedings be transacted in circumstances where material evidence on which the Applicants seek to rely has not been considered by the primary decision maker.

(ii)There is a strong general prohibition in contemporary litigation against rolling review by the Upper Tribunal in judicial review proceedings.

(iii)Where a judicial review applicant is proposing to make further representations to the Secretary of State in circumstances where a new decision will forseeably be induced, it will normally be appropriate, to refuse permission or to dismiss the application substantively on the ground that it will be rendered moot and/or an alternative remedy remains unexhausted and/or giving effect to the prohibition against rolling review.

(iv)The principles rehearsed above are to be similarly applied to applications for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

(v)Where a draft judgment is circulated in advance of handing down the function of parties and their representatives is confined to notifying mis-spellings, formatting defects, inadvertent factual errors, ambiguities of expression and kindred blemishes: Edwards & Ors R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Ors [2008] UKHL 22 applied.

 

•Yusuf (EEA - ceasing to be a jobseeker; effect) [2015] UKUT 00433 (IAC)

 

An individual who has acquired the status of worker for the purposes of article 45 (ex Article 3) TFEU) (and thus regulation 4 (1) (a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006) only through being a jobseeker, who is a qualified person under regulation 6(1)(a), does not retain the status of worker on ceasing to be a jobseeker. In such a scenario, the purpose in interpreting article 45 widely – to give effect to the right to move to another member state to seek employment – is absent.

The term ‘worker’ within article 45 covers, to a greater or lesser extent, not only actual workers but also:

(1) those entering a state for the first time to seek employment (‘first-time’ job seekers’)

(2) those who have had a job and are again seeking work (‘second-time job seekers’)

(3) vocational or occupational trainees; the involuntarily unemployed and sick;

(4) injured and retired workers; and,

(5) women who, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, give up work or jobseeking, provided they return to work or find another job within a reasonable period after the birth of the child.

 

[British Lawyer]

Recent case-law, September 2015, Part 3

 

•Iqbal (Para 322 Immigration Rules) [2015] UKUT 00434 (IAC)

 

(i)The effect of the words “are to be refused” in paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules is to render refusal of leave to remain the United Kingdom obligatory in cases where any of the listed grounds arises. The decision maker has no discretion.

(ii)The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations is a nuanced, sophisticated one which should not be prayed in aid without careful reflection.

 

•R (on the application of GB by litigation friend, Francesco Jeff) v Oxfordshire County Council (age dispute- relevance of documents) IJR [2015] UKUT 00429 (IAC)

 

The duty of the Tribunal in disputed age assessments is to consider the evidence as a whole, including documentary evidence relied upon, even where there are a number of documents produced purporting to verify the claimed age. SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157 considered.

 

•R (on the application of Ali Ahmad Rashid) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00430 (IAC)

 

Judicial review granted, quashing a decision not to accept submissions as a fresh claim in the case of an Iranian Kurd. It was not open to the Respondent to conclude that a report by Professor Joffé submitted by the claimant was not sufficient to depart from the country guidance findings. The three country guidance cases of SB, BA and SA do not deal with the risk on return of a Kurd who is a failed asylum seeker. Whilst an immigration judge would have to consider that the claimant has no credible history and that the report of Professor Joffé was a generic report prepared for another case, the report does address risk to Kurds not only on the basis of political activism but also simply by reason of being Kurds and so contains and refers to evidence that would have to be considered seriously by a judge.

 

•R (on the application of NK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00431 (IAC)

 

Successful judicial review challenging refusal to accept submissions as a fresh asylum claim brought by a Cameroonian woman fearing persecution as a lesbian from both the state and members of her family. The claimant’s case was dismissed at first instance and at appeal within the detained fast track process in 2013. Further evidence was subsequently obtained. This included a letter from an individual who had made enquiries in the country of origin about her situation and letters from members of a lesbian support group in the UK that the Home Office argued were self-serving. The Tribunal rejected the Home Office submissions and also refused permission to the Court of Appeal on these points. The Judge considered that whilst those writing the support letters place weight on what the applicant had told them, they also accepted that she was a lesbian based on their own experiences and their own sexuality. The Tribunal found that taking both the new evidence and the earlier evidence into account, it was not open to the Secretary of State to consider that there would not be a reasonable prospect of success before an Immigration Judge.

 

[fregat222]

Главы МВД Евросоюза обсудят наплыв мигрантов 14 сентября

 

Министры внутренних дел стран Евросоюза встретятся 14 сентября в Брюсселе для обсуждения проблемы миграции на фоне осложняющейся ситуации с наплывом беженцев.

Как отмечается в заявлении люксембургского председательства в ЕС, министры постараются "усилить европейский ответ" на наплыв беженцев.

Ранее в воскресенье министр иностранных дел Франции Лоран Фабиус подверг резкой критике Венгрию за то, что та возвела вдоль границы с Сербией барьер из колючей проволоки. По его словам, это противоречит общим европейским ценностям.

В этом году в Европе наблюдается рекордный наплыв мигрантов. По данным ООН, с начала года границы ЕС пересекли около 300 тысяч беженцев, в основном из стран Африки и Ближнего Востока.

 

 

]]>Источник]]>

[British Lawyer]

Важно решение European Court of Justice (EUCJ) в отношении Retained Right of Residence

 

Singh and Others (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-218/14 (16 July 2015)

 

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice gave preliminary rulings in three cases referred by the High Court of Ireland and in which submissions from the European Commission and the Governments of the UK, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Poland were also considered. The Court ruled on the following issues:

 

1) whether, considering articles 7 and 13(2)(a) of EC Directive 2004/38/EC, a non-EU national may retain a right of residence on divorce if the divorce is preceded by the departure of their EU spouse from the host member state; and

 

2) whether the requirements of an EU national’s right to reside under article 7(1)( on the basis of having sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state if those resources derive in part from their non-EU spouse;

 

1. Retention of the right of residence on divorce

 

Article 13 on the retention of the right of residence by family members in the event of divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership provides at 13(2):

 

Without prejudice to the second subparagraph, divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of the registered partnership referred to in point 2( of Article 2 shall not entail loss of the right of residence of a Union citizen’s family members who are not nationals of a Member State where:

 

(a) prior to initiation of the divorce or annulment proceedings or termination of the registered partnership referred to in point 2( of Article 2, the marriage or registered partnership has lasted at least three years, including one year in the host Member State […].

 

The purpose of article 13 is to provide legal safeguards for family members in the event of the death of the EU citizen, divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of a registered partnership, as indicated by recital 15 of the preamble to the directive.

 

In each of the three cases referred by the High Court of Ireland, the EU spouse had left the host member state and settled in another country before commencing divorce proceedings against their non-EU spouse remaining in Ireland. The Court considered whether the nonEU spouse retained their right of residence under article 13(2) in these circumstances.

 

The Grand Chamber held that the non-EU national cannot retain a right of residence in the Member State under that provision where divorce proceedings were preceded by the departure of the EU spouse from the host member state (§70).

 

The right of residence is retained under article 13(2) if the third country national has a right to reside under article 7(2) in the member state on the date of commencement of the divorce proceedings if the other conditions under article 13 are met (§61). If the EU spouse has left the member state, the third country national no longer meets the conditions for the right to reside under article 7(2) (§65) and so cannot claim the ‘retention’ of a right to reside under article 13 (§67).

 

The Court stated that this did not mean that Member States, which may grant more extensive protection, could not authorise continued rights of residence under its national laws (§68). The applicants in each of the three cases had been granted renewable temporary permission under national law which enabled them to legally reside and work in Ireland. 2

 

. Sufficient resources derived in part from non-EU spouse

 

In each of the three cases referred, there was found to be a period during which the EU spouse was not working in the Member State and the family was supported by the income derived from the business or employment of the non-EU spouse. For example, in the case of the Njume family, the non-EU spouse, Mr Njume supported his EU wife financially during a three-year period (§26).

 

The Court considered whether the requirements of the right to reside of the EU national under article 7(1)( of Directive 2004/38 on the basis of having sufficient resources were met where their income derived in part from the resources of their third country national spouse. Reflecting the framing of the question posed, the Court held that article 7(1)( of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that an EU citizen has sufficient resources for himself and his family members even where these derive in part from those of their third country national spouse (§77).

 

The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Alokpa and Moudoulou, C-86/12, EU:C:2013:645 stating that the expression ‘have’ sufficient resources under article 7(1)( lays down no requirement whatsoever as to the origin of those resources, which may be provided by the third country national (§74); and in Zhu and Chen, C-200/02, EU:C:2004:639 stating that an interpretation of sufficiency of resources requiring these to be held by the EU citizen alone, without the resources of an accompanying family member, would be a disproportionate interference with the exercise of the right of freedom of movement as it was not necessary to achieve the objective of protecting public finances (§75).

[British Lawyer]

Immigration Bill 2015-16: <noindex>http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/immigration.html</noindex>

[British Lawyer]

European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16: <noindex>http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-1...referendum.html</noindex>

[British Lawyer]

Дополнительная оплата в UK VAC во время подачи завлений.

 

Продолжает "радовать" UK BA:

 

Changes to "User pays" visa application centres from 1 September 2015

 

 

From 1 September, the Home Office is "converting" some visa application centres into "User pays" centres. Applicants will pay a £52 fee to use the application centre, in addition to their visa application fee.

 

The affected visa application centres are:

 

Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia

Jalandhar, India

Osaka, Japan

Jinan, China*

Izmir, Turkey

Rostov, Russia

Dusseldorf, Germany

Zurich, Switzerland

Madrid, Spain

Rome, Italy

Warsaw, Poland

 

*Jinan will convert to a user pays centre on 1 October.

 

 

The Home office says:

 

 

"The £52 fee only covers the cost of operating application centres in these locations and ensures that customers do not have to travel long distances, or to another country, to apply for a visa.

 

The fee will apply at all user pays centres and is a reduction from what is currently charged at existing user pays centres in nearly 100 other locations."

 

The fee will apply to all applications submitted and paid for after midnight (UK time) on 1 September.".

 

 

 

[British Lawyer]

Immigration Digest October 2015

 

•HC 497

 

Statement of changes in immigration rules HC 497 was published on 17 September. Briefly, the domestic workers in receipt of a “conclusive grounds” decision that they are victims of slavery or trafficking will be able to apply, within 28 days, for a period of leave of up to six months, with no recourse to public funds. This will allow them to work as a domestic worker.

Meanwhile changes are made to the allocation of Tier 2 certificates of sponsorship following the cap’s being reached. These create smaller salary bands and also allow the Secretary of State to reclaim unused certificates of sponsorship and return them to the limit. There are minor changes to the visitor rules affecting applicants from Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

 

•Judicial review

 

The Administrative Court Office issued a new form N463 for applications for urgent consideration in Judicial Review on 04 September 2015.

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has updated forms T480, T481 and T485 for Judicial Reviews lodged with the Upper Tribunal. The forms now direct that failure to provide form T485 to the Upper Tribunal within nine days of lodging the application for judicial review will lead to proceedings being struck out automatically.

 

It seems that the automatic strike out of an application is a disproportionate measure, particularly in the case of litigants in person.

 

•European Union referendum bill: <noindex>http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-1...referendum.html</noindex>

 

•Home Affairs Committee's inquiry on Immigration - skill shortages: <noindex>http://www.parliament.uk/business/committe...kill-shortages/</noindex>

 

•Immigration detention in the UK: an overview, Commons Briefing papers CBP-7294: <noindex>http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...7294#fullreport</noindex>

 

•Ceasing asylum support: instruction: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ort-instruction</noindex>

 

•Changes to "User pays" visa application centres from 1 September 2015

 

From 1 September, the Home Office is "converting" some visa application centres into "User pays" centres. Applicants will pay a £52 fee to use the application centre, in addition to their visa application fee.

 

The affected visa application centres are:

 

•Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia

•Jalandhar, India

•Osaka, Japan

•Jinan, China*

•Izmir, Turkey

•Rostov, Russia

•Dusseldorf, Germany

•Zurich, Switzerland

•Madrid, Spain

•Rome, Italy

•Warsaw, Poland

 

*Jinan will convert to a user pays centre on 1 October.

 

The Home office says:

 

"The £52 fee only covers the cost of operating application centres in these locations and ensures that customers do not have to travel long distances, or to another country, to apply for a visa.

 

The fee will apply at all user pays centres and is a reduction from what is currently charged at existing user pays centres in nearly 100 other locations."

 

The fee will apply to all applications submitted and paid for after midnight (UK time) on 1 September.

 

•Tier 1 Entrepreneur Interview questions: <noindex>http://www.legalcentre.org//files/Tier-1-E...r-Interview.pdf</noindex>

 

•Review of Tier 2: analysis of salary thresholds: <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...lary-thresholds</noindex>

 

•According to the UK BA, a foreign company without a physical presence in the UK may still get a Tier 2 Sponsorship License

 

[British Lawyer]

Recent case-law, part 1

 

•R (on the application of Bilal Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect) IJR [2015] UKUT 00436 (IAC)

(1) The fact that P (who is not an EEA national) has a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 against an EEA decision to refuse P a residence card does not have the effect of precluding the Secretary of State from removing P under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

 

(2) Section 92(4)( of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as it was before the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014) does not afford P an in-country right of appeal against the section 10 decision, where the issue of whether P is a member of the family of an EEA national is a matter of dispute.

 

(3) The factual issue of whether P is a family member falls to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal on appeal by P against the EEA decision and/or the section 10 decision, whether or not P may by then be outside the United Kingdom. A judicial review by P of the decision to remove and/or the setting of removal directions will not succeed where P’s application is based on marriage to an EEA national, if the Secretary of State reasonably suspects P of being a party to a marriage of convenience.

 

•R (on the application of Myrie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00464 (IAC)

 

Judgment of Coker, J in a Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s decision refusing the Claimant’s application for Leave to Remain on the basis of Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life.

 

This was another case in which the Secretary of State had served two further decisions after permission for judicial was granted with her detailed grounds of defence. The Tribunal found that the two supplementary decision letters were not part of the original decisionmaking process and that the original decision was unlawful for failing to give adequate consideration to the applicant’s family life or the best interests of the children involved.

 

However, instead of quashing the decision (see for example this approach taken by the Judge in R(AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00352 (IAC), case note in the reported determinations of the July 2015 mailing), the Judge held that the two supplementary letters were relevant to the question of remedy which was 2 discretionary in Judicial Review. The Judge found that as the two supplementary decisions considered all the matters that the Secretary of State had not previously addressed and the Claimant’s case had therefore been considered, the Judicial Review must fail.

 

•BM (false passport) DRC [2015] UKUT 00467 (IAC)

 

The mere fact that an asylum claimant utilised a false passport or kindred document in departing the DRC will not without more engage the risk category specified in [119(iv)] of BM and Others (Returnees: Criminal and Non-Criminal) DRC CG [2015] 293 (IAC). The application of this guidance will be dependent upon the fact sensitive context of the individual case. The Tribunal will consider, inter alia, the likely state of knowledge of the DRC authorities pertaining to the person in question. A person claiming to belong to any of the risk categories will not be at risk of persecution unless likely to come to the attention of the DRC authorities. Thus in every case there will be an intense focus on matters such as publicity, individual prominence, possession of a passport, the standard emergency travel document arrangements (where these apply) and how these matters impact on the individual claimant.

 

•Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 00466 (IAC)

 

Where no notice under section 120 of the 2002 Act has been served and where no EEA decision to remove has been made, an appellant cannot bring a Human Rights challenge to removal in an appeal under the EEA Regulations. Neither the factual matrix nor the reasoning in JM (Liberia) [2006] EWCA Civ 1402 has any application to appeals of this nature.

 

•Abbasi and another (visits – bereavement – Article 8) [2015] UKUT 00463 (IAC)

 

1. The refusal of a visa to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom for a finite period for the purpose of mourning with family members the recent death of a close relative and visiting the grave of the deceased is capable of constituting a disproportionate interference with the rights of the persons concerned under Article 8 ECHR.

 

2. The question of whether Article 8 applies and, if so, is breached will depend upon the fact sensitive context of the particular case. 3. The Tribunal should adopt a structured and sequential approach to the Article 8 issues.

 

•Kaur (visit appeals; Article 8) [2015] UKUT 00487 (IAC)

 

1. In visit appeals the Article 8 decision on an appeal cannot be made in a vacuum. Whilst judges only have jurisdiction to decide whether the decision is unlawful under s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (or shows unlawful discrimination) (see Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 00112 (IAC) and Adjei (visit visas – Article 8)[2015] UKUT 0261 (IAC)), the starting-point for deciding that must be the state of the evidence about the appellant’s ability to meet the requirements of paragraph 41 of the immigration rules.

 

2. The restriction in visitor cases of grounds of appeal to human rights does not mean that judges are relieved of their ordinary duties of fact-finding or that they must approach these in a qualitatively different way. Where relevant to the Article 8 assessment, disputes as to the facts must be resolved by taking into account the evidence on both sides: see Adjei at [10] bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests on the appellant.

 

3. Unless an appellant can show that there are individual interests at stake covered by Article 8 “of a particularly pressing nature” so as to give rise to a “strong claim that compelling circumstances may exist to justify the grant of LTE [Leave to Enter] outside the rules”: (see SS (Congo) [2015] EWCA Civ 387 at [40] and [56]) he or she is exceedingly unlikely to succeed. That proposition must also hold good in visitor appeals.

 

[British Lawyer]

Recent case-law, part 2

 

•R (on the application of SS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (declaratory orders) IJR [2015] UKUT 00462 (IAC)

 

(i)The Upper Tribunal has a discretion to make a declaration under section 15(1)(d) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. In common with all remedial orders in judicial review proceedings, this lies within the discretion of the Tribunal.

 

(ii)In deciding whether to make a declaration the Tribunal should bear in mind the educative and corrective function of judicial review. Furthermore, where a challenge exposes that a public authority has acted unlawfully, a declaration will normally be appropriate in circumstances where a quashing, mandatory or prohibitory order is an inappropriate form of relief.

 

•R (on the application of Lewis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00482 (IAC)

 

Unsuccessful judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to grant leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE Immigration Rules or Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights. The Claimant was a Jamaican national and had lived in the UK for all her adult life, a period of 13 years. Her father was a British citizen, her mother had Indefinite Leave to Remain and her siblings also resided in the UK, all but one holding British citizenship. She spent time with her family every week. The Claimant was educated to Masters degree level, had been employed in the UK, volunteered as a bereavement counsellor and was active in her local church. It was argued she no longer had any ties to Jamaica. The Secretary of State argued that she had spent the first 18 years of her life in Jamaica and had completed primary and secondary education there. The Claimant’s relationship with her parents and siblings did not fall within the meaning of family life under Appendix FM and did not go beyond the normal emotional ties between parents and siblings. Her education and employment in the UK would assist her in establishing herself in Jamaica and her life in the UK was developed in the knowledge that her status was unlawful. It was held that the application related to a disagreement with the assessment of the Secretary of State rather than irrationality or illegality on her part. The case of Ogundimu, which related to a statutory appeal of someone who had lived in the UK since the age of 6 years, could not be relied upon.

 

•R (on the application of Msiza) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00483 (IAC)

 

Claim for Judicial Review against decision to refuse leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE and article 8 European Convention on Human Rights dismissed. The claimant was unrepresented for the hearing and did not attend herself. The case proceeded in her absence. The Court held that there was no unlawfulness in the Secretary of State’s original decision. The Claimant was a South African national and had lived 15 years of her life there. The absence of family members in the country of origin was not determinative. She could reestablish contact with her stepmother once in South Africa and would be capable of living independently. The second decision made by the Secretary of State in response to the grant of permission for judicial review was held to be a continuation of the first decision considering the factors articulated in Hamasour and Nash, but it was also the case that it contained no error of law.

 

•R (on the application of Hussain) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00486 (IAC)

 

Decision of Ockelton, J, Vice President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in an unsuccessful judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order under s,3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 on the grounds that she deemed it to be conducive to the public good to deport the applicant from the United Kingdom. The Claimant had 29 convictions for 49 known offences. The application of Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00282 was considered. There had been two previous Tribunal judgments in the case, the first Tribunal finding that the Claimant did not have ties to Bangladesh, his country of origin. The Claimant had argued that following Devaseelan, the Judge of the second Tribunal was not entitled to depart from the findings of the first Tribunal. Though no legal error on the part of the second Judge could be argued, it was submitted that the Secretary of State was obliged to rely on the first Tribunal decision as the starting point for her decision. These arguments were rejected. The Devaseelan guidelines are addressed to Judges not the Secretary of State. The starting point is that the earlier judicial determination is not binding on the second Judge whilst it must be taken into account. Devaseelan has effect at the point at which the Judge takes the second decision. The Secretary of State is required to act on a final judicial decision following R v SSHD ex parte Mersin [2000] EWHC 348 (Admin) and other cases. Further, Devaseelan did not deal with the situation where there were two judicial decisions with conflicting conclusions and there was no reason for a third decisionmaker not to treat the older decision as the starting point. The appropriate remedy would have been an appeal of the second Tribunal decision. On the facts of the case, no injustice was caused to the Claimant as the findings of the second Judge were sustainable given the changed position at that time.

 

•R (on the application of Sharma) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00484 (IAC)

 

Unsuccessful judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State taken in February 2014 to refuse leave to remain on Article 8 ECHR grounds. No unlawfulness was found on public law grounds. It was also held not to be unfair for the Secretary of State not to have served an appealable decision. The legislative regime prior to April 2015 did not confer a right of appeal in the circumstances of the case. The claimant did not fall within the exceptions following the implementation of the Immigration Act 2014 that applied where reconsideration of a case was outstanding. Whilst the respondent’s arguments on what constituted exceptional and compelling circumstances were circular, the claimant’s case did not come close to amounting to such circumstances. The Secretary of State’s delay in decision-making was to be deprecated but did not make her decision unlawful. It was not unfair to require the applicant to make another application and pay a fee for her case to be reconsidered and be granted a right of appeal. The applicant was an overstayer, had come to the UK without expectation of being able to remain and her case had been considered twice by the Secretary of State.

 

[British Lawyer]

Recent case-law, part 3

 

•R (on the application of Bah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 00518 (IAC)

 

Dismissal of a judicial review against the decision to grant Discretionary Leave to Remain instead of Indefinite Leave to Remain to an applicant relying on a letter received from the Home Office notifying that her case would be considered under the legacy programme.

 

It was held that the letter received by the applicant did not make a clear, unambiguous promise that her case would be reviewed by July 2011 or 20 July 2011. The case therefore fell within the generality of cases dismissed in R (Geraldo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2763 (Admin). The language employed in the letter was not accepted as evidencing a clear, unambiguous promise; the variations of wording in the general letters sent to applicants did not have significance; and whilst R (Kadyamarunga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 301 (Admin) could be distinguished on its from Geraldo, where there is conflict, Geraldo is to be preferred.

 

Though the claim failed on the above question, the submissions on the other points of dispute were set out in the judgment at the request of the parties and the Judge offered observations on these (obiter).

 

The Judge considered that a promise to review an applicant’s case by July 2011 would not provide a basis for concluding that a promise was made to review the case by 20 July 2011, the date of the policy change. The opinion expressed by John Vine that applicants would have a reasonable expectation that their case would be considered by July 2011 is not binding on the Court and cannot be reconciled with Geraldo.

 

The applicant would not have a legitimate expectation that the exceptions in paragraph 4.2 of the Discretionary Leave Policy version 6 in place from 24 July 2013 applied to her case and Indefinite Leave to Remain granted as she had not received a clear, unambiguous promise that her case would be dealt with by 20 July 2011. It was rejected in Geraldo that there were or should be other exceptions. It was also stated in Geraldo that there was no evidence before the Court to support the proposition that there was a general undertaking given to deal with legacy or other cases differently from the normal policy guidance.

 

Finally, whilst the Secretary of State has a residual discretion to depart from policy in ‘compelling’ exceptional circumstances, similar arguments based on fairness were rejected in Geraldo.

 

•MC (Essa principles recast) Portugal [2015] UKUT 00520 (IAC)

1. Essa rehabilitation principles are specific to decisions taken on public policy, public security and public health grounds under regulation 21 of the 2006 EEA Regulations.

 

2. It is only if the personal conduct of the person concerned is found to represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society (regulation 21(5)©) that it becomes relevant to consider whether the decision is proportionate taking into account all the considerations identified in regulation 21(5)-(6).

 

3. There is no specific reference in the expulsion provisions of either Directive 2004/38/EC or the 2006 EEA Regulations to rehabilitation, but it has been seen by the Court of Justice as an aspect of integration, which is one of the factors referred to in Article 28(1) and regulation 21(6) (Essa (2013) at [23]).

 

4. Rehabilitation is not an issue to be addressed in every EEA deportation or removal decision taken under regulation 21; it will not be relevant, for example, if rehabilitation has already been completed (Essa (2013) at [32]-[33]).

 

5. Reference to prospects of rehabilitation concerns reasonable prospects of a person ceasing to commit crime (Essa (2013) at [35]), not the mere possibility of rehabilitation. Mere capability of rehabilitation is not to be equated with reasonable prospect of rehabilitation.

 

6. Where relevant (see (4) above) such prospects are a factor to be taken into account in the proportionality assessment required by regulation 21(5) and (6) ((Dumliauskas [41]).

 

7. Such prospects are to be taken into account even if not raised by the offender (Dumliauskas [52]).

 

8. Gauging such prospects requires assessing the relative prospects of rehabilitation in the host Member State as compared with those in the Member State of origin, but, in the absence of evidence, it is not to be assumed that prospects are materially different in that other Member State (Dumliauskas [46], [52]-[53] and [59]).

 

9. Matters that are relevant when examining the prospects of the rehabilitation of offenders include family ties and responsibilities, accommodation, education, training, employment, active membership of a community and the like (Essa (2013) at [34]). However, lack of access to a Probation Officer or equivalent in the other Member State should not, in general, preclude deportation (Dumliauskas [55])

 

10. In the absence of integration and a right of permanent residence, the future prospects of integration cannot be a weighty factor (Dumliauskas [44] and [54]). Even when such prospects have significant weight they are not a trump card, as what the Directive and the 2006 EEA Regulations require is a wide-ranging holistic assessment. Both recognise that the more serious the risk of reoffending, and the offences that a person may commit, the greater the right to interfere with the right of residence (Dumliauskas at [46] and [54]).

 

•Deelah and others (section 117B – ambit) [2015] UKUT 00515 (IAC)

 

(i)Sections 117A and 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are not confined to an appeal under section 84(1)©. They apply also to appeals brought under section 84(1)(a) and (g).

 

(ii)Section 117B(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act, which instruct Judges to attribute “little weight” to the considerations specified therein, do not give rise to a constitutionally impermissible encroachment on the independent adjudicative function of the judiciary.

 

(iii)A private life “established”, in the wording and in the context of section 117B(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act, is not to be construed and confined to the initiation, or creation, of the private life in question and not its continuation or development. (iv) The adjective “precarious” in section 117B(5) of the 2002 Act does not contemplate only, and is not restricted to, temporary admission to the United Kingdom or a grant of leave to remain in a category which permits no expectation of a further grant.

 

[British Lawyer]

Граждане EU теперь обязаны иметь PR перед подачей на гражданство.

 

Теперь граждане EU перед тем, как подать на британское гражданство, должны получить статус Permanent Residence.

 

Ссылки на официальные источники:

 

<noindex>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ctober_2015.pdf</noindex> и <noindex>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1806/made</noindex>

 

Цитата:

 

FOR APPLICANTS FROM SWITZERLAND OR THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA Evidence of Nationality

 

• Your valid passport or valid EEA national identity card as evidence of your nationality.

Evidence that you are considered permanently resident in the UK

 

• A document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card

issued by the Home Office.

 

Further information on how to apply for a document certifying permanent residence

or a permanent residence card, along with the current fee for such documents can be

found on our website at <noindex>https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card</noindex>.