Visa Services - Page 24 of 29 - ICS Legal Blog

Contact Us: + 44 0207 237 3388

Latest UK & International Legal News

Deportation – Overstayers’ Regularisation Scheme

Prior to 2 October 2000 a person who "overstayed" the period of his limited leave in the United Kingdom would have been liable to deportation. On 2 October 2000 section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 came into force. This made provision for those overstayers, not previously served with a notice of a decision to make a deportation order, to be administratively removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions given under section 10. Deportation was expensive and time-consuming process, which carries with it both a bar on return for at least three years and a right of appeal before removal. The system that replaced it ensured overstayers were removed with no right to appeal the decision in the UK unless they made an asylum or human rights claim whilst in the United Kingdom, or in the case of an EEA national or family member of an EEA national, he claims that the decision would breach his Treaty rights in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom. Section 9 of the 1999 Act allowed arrangements to be made under which overstayers could apply to regularise their stay i.e. to apply for leave to remain. Applications had to be made...

ILR (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent)

Case summary Issue Where a deportation order is revoked, does the leave to remain, which was invalidated by the order pursuant to s.5 1A 1971, remain invalidated or does it revive? Facts In 2000, the respondent, a citizen of Grenada, was granted indefinite leave to remain ("ILR"). In 2008, following the respondent’s involvement in criminal conduct, including custodial sentences, the appellant issued a deportation order, which revoked the respondent’s ILR status. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal determined that, whilst the respondent was liable to deportation, actual deportation would breach his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The respondent requested confirmation of his ILR status. The appellant refused such confirmation on the basis that the respondent was not entitled to ILR. The respondent brought an application for judicial review of this decision. Parties Appellant name Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent name Fitzroy George Appeal Justices allocated names Lord Neuberger Lord Clarke Lord Carnwath Lord Hughes Lord Toulson Hearing date 4 Mar 2014 Judgment hand down date: 14 May 2014

points-based system – Maintenance funds

The maintenance funds thresholds for Points-Based System Migrants and their dependants are being updated in line with changes to the cost of living since they were last updated in 2012. The updates for work routes (Tiers 1, 2 and 5) are based on Consumer Price Index inflation since 2012, and the updates for the student route (Tier 4) are based on the rise in the maximum package of grants and loans available to home students since 2012.   The UK's points-based system In February 2008, the Labour government introduced the UK's first points-based immigration system heralded by ministers as being based on the Australian system. It replaced a labyrinthine scheme which saw 80 different types of visa granted. The new system contains a lengthy list of sub-tiers of migrant, but broadly they are classed as one of four 'tiers'. Tier 3 was intended to be a pathway for unskilled immigrants, but after the system began operating the British government decided there was no need for further unskilled immigration from outside the EU. Under the coalition, it has been removed and others tweaked so now the tiers are: Tier 1: high-value (possessed of exceptional talent, highly skilled, high-net-worth investor, graduate entrepreneur)...

Tier 2 – Mergers, takeovers and similar changes

Tier 2 - Mergers, takeovers and similar changes A change of employment application is not required if you are moving under TUPE (or similar) protection due to a takeover, merger, de-merger or any other circumstances in which TUPE is triggered. Your sponsor may be required to carry out a new resident labour market test. A resident labour market test will not be required if you are applying as an Intra Company Transfer (continuing to work for the same company), a job which is a shortage occupation or job where your salary is £153,500 (or £152,100, if the recruitment took place before 6 April 2014) or above. It is recommended that you do not commence employment until you have received your biometric residence permit (BRP). However, on the basis of your approval letter, if you and your sponsor agree to commence the employment before you have your BRP, both you and your sponsor carry the risk of having no statutory excuse against a civil penalty if the BRP card is incorrect or withdrawn by the Home Office. You can continue working for your previous sponsor until the start date on your new Certificate of Sponsorship, provided your previous leave has not expired.

Determination and Reasons

MMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Appeal Number: [2005] UKIAT 00012 IAT Reported Date of Hearing: 29/09/2004 Date of Ruling: 17/01/2005 Before: Mr P R Lane - Vice PresidentMr M E OlszewskiMr R Baines JP BETWEEN The Secretary of State for the Home Department (re FM (Uganda)) Appellant - and - FM (Uganda) Respondent Determination and Reasons Representation: For the Appellant: Ms T Hart, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer For the Respondent: Ms L Bailey, Counsel, instructed by Messrs Christian Khan Solicitors 1. The Appellant, who is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, appeals with permission against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr D J Ross, sitting at Hatton Cross, in which he allowed on human rights grounds the Respondent's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to give directions for the Respondent's removal from the United Kingdom. 2. The Respondent arrived in the United Kingdom in 1999 and claimed asylum, asserting a fear of the authorities in Uganda. The Adjudicator dismissed the Respondent's appeal on asylum grounds and she makes no complaint in that regard. 3. The Adjudicator, however, allowed the Respondent's appeal on human rights grounds. At paragraph 5.5 of the determination the Adjudicator made the following findings:-...

Determination and Reasons (Medical treatment of “finite” duration)

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL Neutral Citation Number: [2005] UKAIT00175 Date of Hearing: 28/11/2005 Date of Ruling: 12/12/2005 Before: Mr N H Goldstein-Senior Immigration JudgeMrs W JordanMr P Bompass Between LB (Bangladesh) Appellant and The Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent Determination and Reasons Representation: For the Appellant: Ms S Carroll, Counsel For the Respondent: Ms V Chapman, Home Office Presenting Officer 1. This is a reconsideration of the determination promulgated on 26 May 2005 following a hearing on 19 May 2005, of Mr C C Wright, Immigration Judge, who dismissed the appeals of the Appellant, a citizen of Bangladesh, against the decision of the Respondent dated 20 January 2004 to refuse her application for variation of her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Immigration Judge dismissed both the Appellant's immigration appeal and her human rights appeal under Article 8 of the ECHR. 2. Ms Catriona Jarvis, Senior Immigration Judge, in ordering reconsideration on 23 June 2005 considered that the grounds of appeal disclosed arguable material errors of law. Ms Jarvis continued: "It is arguable that the Immigration Judge erred in law in determining that the Appellant's course of medical treatment was not finite. It is arguable that...

spouses, partners and children minimum income for applying to stay or settle in the UK

On 4 to 5 March 2014, the Court of Appeal heard the Home Office’s appeal against the 5 July 2013 High Court judgment in a legal challenge to the minimum income threshold for spouses/partners and children applying in the family route. The income threshold applies to non-EEA national spouses/partners and children applying to settle in the UK with someone who is already resident here. These are generally applications under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules. 1.How this affects applications UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) is continuing to put on hold decisions in some spouse/partner and child applications for a settlement visa or leave to remain until the legal challenge is finally determined by the courts. This may take several months at least and means UKVI will not decide the application during this time. You will be told in writing if this happens to your application. UKVI has published information on the number of non-EEA applications on hold pending the outcome of the case. 1.1Applications it affects The hold on decision-making applies to applications made under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules where the application would be refused solely because the rules relating to the minimum income threshold are not met. This includes, where relevant,...

Proportionality test As A Ground Of Judicial Review

The assessment of proportionality is not a pure question of law or fact. It is, as was stated in EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41 at [12], a difficult and evaluative exercise. In Mukarkar v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2006] EWCA Civ 1045 Carnwath LJ (as he then was) stated that the assessment of proportionality involves factual judgments which are often not easy, and as to which different tribunals, without illegality or irrationality, may reach different conclusions on the same case. The new proportionality test In the absence of case-law on how the new proportionality test is working in practice, how should you argue proportionality at assessment (with examples of successes and failures, difficulties experienced and overcome and unexpected issues or arguments deployed)? Back in early December, White Paper got in touch with me to ask me to speak on the subject of the new proportionality test. It’s a very important topic so I was happy to agree. I thought that the subhead was perhaps a little ambitious, but there were four months to go before the talk, and I hoped that the case law would develop usefully over that time. I did what barristers always...

Student and private life

The Immigration Judge noted that in MM (Tier 1 PSW; Art 8; "private life") Zimbabwe [2009] UKAIT 00037, it was held that a student in the United Kingdom on a temporary basis had no expectation of a right to remain in order to further social ties and relationships, where the criteria of the Points-Based System were not met and that the character of an individual's private life was by its very nature of the type which could be formed elsewhere, albeit through different social ties. Although the Court of Appeal in OA (Nigeria) [2008] EWCA Civ 82 had held that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that a student's Article 8 rights would be violated if she were removed from the United Kingdom in the middle of an academic year, the Tribunal in MM concluded that the prospects for bringing "a right to study case within Article 8 are bleak". In this regard, the Tribunal in MMnoted the judgment of Laws LJ in LL (China) [2009] EWCA Civ 617, that "the appellant has on the facts effectively no Article 8 case unless her desire to complete the ACCA course of itself provides her with one, but I do not see that Article 8 can fulfil that function,...

Applying Chikwamba v SSHD

The significance of Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40 is to make it plain that, in appeals where the only matter weighing on the respondent's side of an Article 8 proportionality balance is the public policy of requiring an application to be made under the immigration rules from abroad, that legitimate objective will usually be outweighed by factors resting on the appellant's side of the balance.