Immigration Appeals including Judicial Review Archives - Page 2 of 2 - ICS Legal Blog

Contact Us: + 44 0207 237 3388

Latest UK & International Legal News

Immigration Appeal Review

What is the purpose of an appeal review The purpose of the appeal review is to consider the grounds of appeal and supporting documents. A review is required for all decisions refused with a full right of appeal (RoA). Those undertaking the review must assess whether the appellant has satisfactorily addressed the reasons for refusal. If the appellant has successfully addressed all the points of refusal the decision should be overturned and a visa issued. If it is found that the appellant has failed to address the reasons for refusal a written statement detailing why, the decision is being upheld must be provided. Who should conduct the appeal review All appealed decisions must be reviewed by an independent decision maker and records should be updated. How should the appeal review be conducted On receipt of an appeal, the initial decision must be reviewed taking into account the grounds of appeal and any additional supporting documentation. Documents supplied at the time of application should be available for consideration if required. The reviewer must decide to maintain the ECO decision or agree in light of the grounds of appeal. Where an appellant provides evidence which appears to discharge the burden of proof...

Tier 1 entrepreneur extension of stay

Tier 1 Entrepreneur application's can be extended for further leave to remain, however you need to make sure you provide the specified evidences. You can apply to extend your visa if you have registered as a director or as self-employed no more than 6 months after the date you were given permission to stay in the UK under a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa and that you can prove you’ve been self-employed or working as a director of a business 3 months before you apply. You must also provide evidences that you have created at least 2 full time jobs that have existed for at least 12 months. You must have invested into 1 or more UK businesses either: £200,000 in cash; or £50,000 in cash if your initial application was based on having funds from an approved funding source You must be in the UK to extend your visa. You should include any dependants who are on your current visa on your application to extend - including children who have turned 18 during your stay. The visa should be considered by those looking to start, run or take over a UK based business. The visa allows initial entry for a period of up to...

Integration obligation on long term residents

Press and Information Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 11/15 Luxembourg, 28 January 2015 Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-579/13 P & S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen In the view of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, an integration obligation imposed on long term residents is not contrary to EU law, provided that it does not constitute a condition for the maintenance of that status The obligation on such residents to pass a social-integration examination is contrary to the principle of proportionality The directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents [1] provides, in particular, that Member States are to grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals who have resided legally and continuously within their territory for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application. The Member States may, none the less, require third-country nationals to comply with integration conditions laid down in national law. The directive does not, however, indicate whether and to what extent such an integration obligation can be imposed on a person once that person has acquired long-term resident status. In the Netherlands the integration obligation imposed on foreign nationals...

Most immigration judicial review applications move to Upper Tribunal from November

Most immigration judicial review applications will move to the Upper Tribunal from the 1st of November. The Right Honourable Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, made a direction on August 21st which transfers certain immigration and asylum judicial reviews from the High Court. The direction lists which applications are excluded in paragraph 3. Direction given in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and section 18 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal under s. 18 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Mandatory Transfer of Judicial Review applications to the Upper Tribunal under s. 31A(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 below, the Lord Chief Justice hereby specifies the following classes of case for the purposes of section 18(6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007: any application for permission to apply for judicial review and any application for judicial review (including any application for ancillary relief and costs in such applications) that calls into question: i. a decision made under the Immigration Acts (as defined in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978) or any...

No obligation enforceable within the UK to oblige government to comply with Strasbourg

Navarathnam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2383 (QB) There was no unfairness in the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing a Sri Lankan asylum seeker leave to remain in the United Kingdom, despite the ruling from the Strasbourg court that to return him would violate his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. A decision had been made to grant the applicant six months discretionary leave to remain but he had absconded before it could be implemented, and by the time he resurfaced the secretary of state had been entitled to review the case and determine that the circumstances in Sri Lanka had changed so that he was no longer at risk if returned. The concept of conspicuous unfairness amounting to abuse of power was encapsulated by Simon Brown LJ in R v. Inland Revenue Commissioner, ex parte Unilever plc [1996] STC 681 at p. 695a: Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power … is unlawful not because it involves conduct such as would offend some equivalent private law principle, not principally indeed because it breaches a legitimate expectation that some different substantive decision will be taken, but rather because it...

Home Office will appeal High Court ruling on the minimum income threshold for non-EEA spouses

The Home Office announced on Friday that it will appeal the High Court's judgment earlier this month which found that the minimum earnings threshold required to bring in a non-European Economic Area spouse under the Immigration Rules amounts to a disproportionate interference with family life. We reported on the judgment (MM v Secretary of State for the Home Department) and the subsequent pause in some Home Office decision-making here. According to the Home Office's July 26th statement, that pause remains in place until the case is finally determined by the Courts. Announcing its decision to appeal MM, the statement explained that the Home Office believes matters of public policy, including the detail of how the minimum income threshold should operate, are for the Government and Parliament to determine, not the Courts. "We are therefore pursuing an appeal against the judgment. We have asked the Court of Appeal to expedite this. In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold," the statement continued.

7 years concession for under 18

Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the UK Border Agency to carry out its existing functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. It does not impose any new functions, or override existing functions.The changes to the policy from 9th July 2012, brought a new legislation under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. It states the following: Where a person asserts that they have family life with children, the decision maker must ensure that the person can satisfy all of the factors listed at (a) to (e) below: (a) They have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child who is under 18. (b) The child is in the UK. (c) The child either 1. is British; or 2. has lived in the UK for at least 7 years preceding the date of the immigration decision. (d) It would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. (e) There is no other family member who is able to care for the child in the UK. If you believe your case can benefit from this policy, then please speak to ICS...