Visa Services - Page 6 of 29 - ICS Legal Blog

Contact Us: + 44 0207 237 3388

Latest UK & International Legal News

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution also known as ADR, is a common but less used method to resolving issues. It is important to note that Law is one method of resolving disputes when, as is inevitable, they emerge. Law is a formal dispute resolution mechanism because society and people have made it complex; thus there has to be mediation and rules in place to resolve issues. The Court will involve itself to make a fair, balanced decision to all parties. However you will notice below, that the Court is providing the ADR is a mean to resolve the issues rather than involve the Courts. It is somewhat forcing both claimant's and defendant's to discuss and come to an agreement. Let's start by considering the legal framework which sets out the policy: Alternative Dispute Resolution 9. The courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort. The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) or complaints procedure would be more suitable than litigation, and if so, endeavour to agree which to adopt. Both the claimant and defendant may be required by the court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered. Parties are warned...

The principles of case laws related to illegal entrant to the UK impacting British Nationality Applications

We have seen a rise on the number of British Nationality application's being refused, on the sole notion of failing to meet the Good Character requirements. British Nationality law itself is complex. It's policies and definitions are drawn from policy guidance's drawn up by the Home Office and then case laws provides us clarifications on how these rules are supposed to be interpreted. I have found that not all case laws provides us the absolute guidance which means an application for British Nationality must contain the correct references as well as the correct arguments. We start on the case of MA (Illegal entrance - not para 395C) Bangladesh [2009] UKAIT 00039. The appeal was related to the definition of illegal entrance to the UK. In the circumstances and the factors mentioned in paragraph 395 of the Immigration Rules Hc395 are relevant only to a Section 10 Removal and not to the case of removal of an illegal entrant. Had it been intended that these criteria were to be made to be applicable to the case of an illegal entrant whose removal was contemplated, then the Rule would have said so - the forward slashes in the heading of the notice of immigration decision clearly...

Judicial Review and its principles

Judicial Review is a common legal remedy in majority of immigration based applications. One of the main reasons is for the withdrawal of appeal rights and the introduction of Administrative Reviews (AR). The scope of AR is limited and does not permit the Appellant to challenge a decision, or even requesting an application of discretion. Judicial Review has been a growth area of litigation. One of the main reasons in this increase is due to the increasing role of the Government regulating many areas of life. Public bodies take a vast number of decisions which impacts a persons day to day life. I hope the following will give you an understanding on the Judicial Review process and when to lodge one, as these can be quite expensive as well as serious implications to future immigration based applications. You must have a legitimate claim, and able to demonstrate that the decision was made unlawfully. The Court are now Jetly & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 204 (Admin), Mrs Justice Andrews DEB, made a serious remarks on the conduct of the lawyer representing the case in question, putting the matter to SRA for the lack of understanding...

UK Home Office to expand the use of ePassport gates to 7 more countries

The UK Home Office have announced today that from 20th of May 2019, they will permit visitors from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States to use the ePassport gates at Ports in the UK. It is a welcoming news given to smooth the process of entering the UK. The UK Government estimates that there were about 10 million people arriving to the UK in 2017. This demonstrates that making the entry to the UK easier and more smarter is good for business, making those low risk countries accessible to the UK. Home Secretary Sajid Javid said: Our new global immigration and border system will improve security and fluidity for passengers coming to visit or work in the UK. Expanding the use of ePassport gates is a key part of this and allows us to improve the passenger experience of those arriving in the UK while keeping our border secure. The new system will help to drive our economy, cement our reputation as a global leader and send a clear message to the world – the UK is open for business. Whilst the new system is going to be implemented, the new system will check and make...

Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673

The case of Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673, relates to the issues under Tier 1 General refusals in conjunction with paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules HC395. We have highlighted a few important matters for consideration. Here are some relevant details taken from the case itself. If you wish to take advice on this matter, then please contact us on 0207 237 3388 or email our team on info@icslegal.com.  The appeal had the following findings: A number of appeals brought forward to the Tribunal and Courts is whether paragraph 322(5) applies which considers whether it is "undesirable" for a person to be granted indefinite leave to remain. If this does, this case law, as well as many matters before the Tribunal and Courts, is that this paragraph is not mandatory but more of presumptive, in other words, that each matter must be considered correctly. There must be: (i) reliable evidence of (ii) sufficiently reprehensible conduct; and (iii) an assessment, taking proper account of all relevant circumstances known about the applicant at the date of decision, of whether his or her presence in the UK is undesirable (this should include evidence of positive features of...

No deal arrangements for EU citizens & family members

As the UK Government is going through negotiations, it is important that EEA nationals and their family members understand their legal rights.  EEA nationals will have right to enter the UK but these will be limited. The following is a short summary of what has been proposed by the UK Government. For stays longer than 3 months, European Temporary Leave to Remain will be required. If the UK leaves the EU without agreeing a deal, the government will seek to end free movement as soon as possible and has introduced an Immigration Bill to achieve this. For a transitional period only, EEA citizens and their family members, including Swiss citizens, will still be able to come to the UK for visits, work or study and they will be able to enter the UK as they do now. However, to stay longer than 3 months they will need to apply for permission and receive European Temporary Leave to Remain, which is valid for a further 3 years. EU citizens wishing to stay for longer than 3 years will need to make a further application under the new skills-based future immigration system, which will begin from 2021.   The information set out today also confirms...

The UK’s future skills-based immigration system

The Government has published its guidance on the future of the UKVI's new reformed immigration system: During the Implementation Period, Home Office will implement the EU Settlement Scheme. This gives EU citizens already here, and also those who arrive in the UK during the Implementation Period, the opportunity to secure their future residence in the UK. The UK has agreed with the EU on rights for EU citizens already living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU, to enable them to carry on with their lives broadly as now. The Government is finalising arrangements with negotiating with European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States – Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland – to bring about similar arrangements for their citizens. The Government has made clear that the CTA and associated rights between the UK, Ireland and the Crown Dependencies will be unaffected by the UK’s exit. Irish and British citizens will continue to enjoy the freedom to travel within the CTA without the need for immigration controls or residence/work permits. Irish citizens do not need to obtain settled status in the UK. The UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. There will be an Implementation Period, planned to...

KO (Nigeria) [2018] UKSC 53 and Rhuppiah [2018] UKSC 58

The case of KO (Nigeria) [2018] UKSC 53 and Rhuppiah [2018] UKSC 58 plays an important role towards Tribunal's decision, whether a removal direction is lawful in line with Article 8 ECHR. By the Immigration Act 2014, Parliament introduced Part 5A to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which seeks to direct courts and tribunals as to how to conduct this balancing exercise. KO (Nigeria) and Rhuppiah are the first cases in which the Supreme Court has had to consider these provisions. In doing so, the Supreme Court has largely continued to narrow the scope of protection provided for migrants in the UK by Article 8. Rhuppiah [2018] UKSC 58 concerned s 117B(3) and (5). Mrs Rhuppiah, a Tanzanian national, entered the UK in 1997 with leave to remain for 3 months in 1997. She was granted various other periods of leave to remain, although sometimes with breaks between her visas during which time she was in the UK unlawfully. While studying at college, Mrs Rhuppiah met Ms Charles who suffers from a gravely debilitating illness. Mrs Rhuppiah lives with Ms Charles and provides care gratuitously to her. Mrs Rhuppiah's leave to remain expired in 2009 and she had not been...

Tier 1 ILR and paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules

The case of R (Khan) v SSHD (Dishonesty, Tax Return, Paragraph 322(5)) [2018] UKUT 384 (IAC) (3 May 2018) is worth to have a look at. It set out principles that Secretary of State failed to consider when deciding on applications made by Tier 1 migrants. In Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] UKPC 4 Lord Nicholls said that "carelessness is not dishonesty" and thus the refusal was arguably irrational and unlawful. The Supreme Court approved of this statement in Ivey v Genting Casino [2017] UKSC 67. The Tribunal noted that in response to the applicant's reliance on the decision in Sagar Arun Samant [2017] UKAITUR JR65462016 (discussed here), the Home Office produced a list of cases where applicants had "jumped on the band wagon" but the Tribunal had rejected any evidence blaming the accountants. Very clear examples of this point were found in Kamal [2017] UKAITUR JR114172016, Parveen and Saleem [2017] UKAITUR JR94402016 and other cases.

Safi and others (permission to appeal decisions) [2018] UKUT 00388 (IAC)

Key points on the case (1) It is essential for a judge who is granting permission to appeal only on limited grounds to say so, in terms, in the section of the standard form document that contains the decision, as opposed to the reasons for the decision. (2) It is likely to be only in very exceptional circumstances that the Upper Tribunal will be persuaded to entertain a submission that a decision which, on its face, grants permission to appeal without express limitation is to be construed as anything other than a grant of permission on all of the grounds accompanying the application for permission, regardless of what might be said in the reasons for decision section of the document. D. Procedure Rules 11.     Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 provides as follows:- "Tribunal's consideration of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal 34.—(1) On receiving an application for permission to appeal the Tribunal must first consider whether to review the decision in accordance with rule 35. (2) If the Tribunal decides not to review the decision, or reviews the decision and decides to take no action in relation...