Immigration Detention & Bail Archives - Page 11 of 17 - ICS Legal Blog

Contact Us: + 44 0207 237 3388

Latest UK & International Legal News

Financial Requirement – Change in Family Migration

Since 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules have contained a financial requirement to be met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person who is: a British Citizen; or present and settled in the UK; or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection. Since 1 December 2013, the Immigration Rules in Appendix Armed Forces have also contained a financial requirement to be met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person (British or foreign or Commonwealth) who is a member of HM Forces (as defined in paragraph 2(d) of Appendix Armed Forces). The lawfulness of the minimum income threshold under the financial requirement was upheld by the Court of Appeal in its 11 July 2014 judgment in MM & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 985. From 28 July 2014, section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014 reinforces the public interest under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) in the financial independence of...

Limiting the number of visas available to skilled workers

Standard Note: SN/HA/5829 Last updated: 24 March 2015 Author: Melanie Gower Section: Home Affairs Section This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. ---------- David Cameron described the Government's immigration policy objective as "good immigration, not mass immigration." The Government wanted to attract the 'brightest and best' migrants who were deemed most beneficial to the UK. It also wanted to reduce overall net migration levels from the hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands by the end of the 2010 -...

Parliamentary report says immigration detention used too frequently and calls for 28 day limit

The Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom A Joint Inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key Recommendations • There should be a time limit of 28 days on the length of time anyone can be held in immigration detention. • Detention is currently used disproportionately frequently, resulting in too many instances of detention. The presumption in theory and practice should be in favour of community-based resolutions and against detention. • Decisions to detain should be very rare and detention should be for the shortest possible time and only to effect removal. • The Government should learn from international best practice and introduce a much wider range ofalternatives to detention than are currently used in the UK. About the Inquiry The inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the United Kingdom received written submissions and heard oral evidence from over 200 individuals and organisations, including those with experience of being detained, the Immigration Minister, academics and charities. The panel looked at the way immigration detention is used in the United Kingdom, including the lack of a time limit on the length of time an individual...

Appeal on designated state status of Jamaica and risk to homosexuals

________________________ 4 March 2015 PRESS SUMMARY R (on the application of Jamar Brown (Jamaica)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 8 On appeal from [2013] EWCA Civ 666 JUSTICES: Lady Hale (Deputy President), Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson BACKGROUND TO THE APPEALS The Respondent is a citizen of Jamaica. He arrived in the UK on 7 May 2010 on a one-month visitor's visa. On 14 October 2010 he applied for asylum on the ground that he is homosexuals and feared persecution if he returned to Jamaica. On 20 October 2010, he was detained pending a decision on removal. This was done pursuant to a fast-tracking procedure as Jamaica was on the list of states designated under s 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the "Act"). Jamaica was added to the s 94(4) list by article 3 of the Asylum (Designated State) Order 2003 (SI 2003/970). This was done pursuant to the Secretary of State's power in s 94(5) of the Act as it was believed that the following conditions were met: "(a) there is in general in that State or part no serious risk of persecution of persons...

New Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules published

New Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules published The Home Office today released a substantial new Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1025). The Statement notes that the purpose is to make the following changes: • Consolidate and clarify the Immigration Rules for visitors, by streamlining 15 visitor routes down to four: visitor (standard); visitor for marriage or civil partnership; visitor for permitted paid engagements and transit visitor. • Create a single set of Rules for visitors covering: requirements for entry and stay in the UK; how to make an application as a visitor; suitability grounds for refusal and cancellation of visas or leave; eligibility requirements for each of the new visitor types; curtailment; the list of nationalities which require a visa in advance of travel and permitted activities for visitors. • Rebrand the student visitor, and extended student visitor routes into new routes for short term study, which sit in Part 3 of the Rules, so that the routes are conceptually clearer for those undertaking short courses. • Rebrand the "parent of a child at school" route as "parent of a Tier 4 (child) student" and place into Part 7 of the Immigration Rules as these individuals are not visitors....

Immigration Law Rights-Extension of the Workers Registration Scheme in 2009 was unlawful

A recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (30.1.15) now means that the Workers Registration Scheme will have to be treated as having no legal effect in respect of its final two years’ of operation, potentially affecting the past and future social security, housing and immigration law rights of hundreds of thousands of EU workers. TG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PC) [2015] UKUT 0050 (AAC) (30 January 2015)  In TG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PC) [2015] UKUT 0050 (AAC) (30 January 2015) the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has ruled that the government acted unlawfully when it extended the controversial Workers Registration Scheme [‘WRS’] for its final two years of operation. The WRS required nationals of eight accession states to register each time they started a new job, and prevented them from relying on their EU law right to reside in respect of any period where they did not register. Many workers inadvertently fell foul of what was seen by some as an unneccesarily bureaucratic scheme. Even though the WRS ended in 2011, its effects have continued to be felt because past non compliance with the WRS has in many cases...

Justice McCloskey reviews a “momentous” year in the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Justice McCloskey reviews a "momentous" year in the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber 17 February 2015 The Senior President of Tribunals' Annual Report 2015 has been published today. The report is the third and last by Sir Jeremy Sullivan, who retires from judicial office later this year. In chapter one of the report, Justice Bernard McCloskey, in his first year as President of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, looks back at a year in which events and developments ranged from "the merely notable to the outright momentous." Michael Clements, President of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, also contributes a review of the year in chapter two. We've excerpted both pieces below: ________________________________ Senior President of Tribunals' Annual Report February 2015 […] Chapter One – Upper Tribunal […] Immigration & Asylum Chamber Chamber President: Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey It is my great pleasure to contribute to this annual report to the Senior President of Tribunals. It is the first such report that I have compiled. I do so as the first year of my Presidency of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) comes to an end. It has been quite a year for UTIAC. Events...

deportation first, appeal later measures start to have an impact.

Deportation First, Appeal Later Powers introduced in the government’s flagship Immigration Act are cracking down on the appeals conveyor belt used by criminals to delay their removal from the UK. And more than 300 have already been removed – with nearly 500 more currently going through the system. Non-suspensive appeals came into force in July, meaning Home Office officials can deport criminals before they have the opportunity to launch spurious claims under the Human Rights Act or falsely claim asylum. Those deported then have the right to launch an appeal from their own country, rather than clogging the British justice system – costing UK taxpayers time and money in fighting the cases through the courts. And the new powers have seen a number of criminals deported despite having family members in the UK – reinforcing the government’s stance that the right to a family life should not override the rights of wider society. Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire said: Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in Britain should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. The countless appeals and re-appeals lodged by criminals attempting to cheat the system cost us all money and are...

James Brokenshire: “Loophole” allowing non-British EU citizens to bring in a spouse needs to be addressed

Immigration Minister James Brokenshire has said that a "loophole" that allows non-British EU citizens to bring in a spouse without being subject to the Government's requirements on minimum earnings needs to be addressed, BBC News reported yesterday. Brokenshire was giving evidence before Parliament's Home Affairs Committee for their inquiry into the work of the Immigration Directorates. Under the minimum earnings requirements introduced into the Immigration Rules in July 2012, British citizens (or those with indefinite leave) wishing to sponsor their non-EU spouse's visa need to prove earnings of at least £18,600 a year. However, Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vaz pointed out a loophole to Brokenshire that meant the same earnings requirements did not apply to citizens of other EU countries. BBC News quoted Vaz as asking: "Two people living in identical houses next to each other - one who happens to be British born or a person with indefinite leave tried to bring someone from India, they have got to show their £18,600 … However, the next door neighbour who comes from Slovakia, who has settled in Leicester, and who wants to bring her spouse in, doesn't have to show that income. That's unfair isn't it?" According to BBC News, Brokenshire said Vaz was...

Immigration Rules are not even understandable by ordinary lawyers and advisers

In a notable new judgment handed down today on changes made to applications for leave to enter or remain on the basis of an applicant's private or family life, the Court of Appeal has criticised the complexity and lack of intelligibility of the Immigration Rules and called for them to be properly archived. See, in particular, paragraph 59 where Lord Justice Underhill states: "Paragraph A277C, as amended by HC 760, which I set out at para. 52 above, is not alas untypical of the kind of rebarbative drafting which those trying to understand the Rules have to grapple with. I fully recognise that the Immigration Rules, which have to deal with a wide variety of circumstances and may have as regards some issues to make very detailed provision, will never be "easy, plain and short" (to use the language of the law reformers of the Commonwealth period); and it is no doubt unrealistic to hope that every provision will be understandable by lay-people, let alone would-be immigrants. But the aim should be that the Rules should be readily understandable by ordinary lawyers and other advisers. That is not the case at present. I hope that the Secretary of State may...