Страница 73 из 79 ПерваяПервая ... 23637172737475 ... ПоследняяПоследняя
Показано с 721 по 730 из 781

Тема: Важные судебные решения и полезная информация для иммигрантов

  1. #721

    По умолчанию

    07 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> UKVI Guidance: Updated guidance on processing applications for an administrative review: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ksKvMnfMqP7GP7

    >>> Supporting documents for a visa application - the current options for the applicants: https://www.vfsglobal.co.uk/in/en/va...ting-documents
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  2. #722

    По умолчанию

    11 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> UKVI Guidance: About our services: https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...tent=immediate

    UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for decisions about who can come to the UK and who can stay here.

    Updated settlement application standards.


    >>> Partners of members of the diplomatic service, British Council, HM forces or DFID: SET06 - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...tent=immediate

    Guidance UK Visas and Immigration uses when deciding applications for settlement by partners of members of the diplomatic service, British Council, HM forces or the Department for International Development (DFID).

    >>> UKVI Form: Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) endorsement review form: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...tent=immediate

    Form to apply for a Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) endorsement review.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  3. #723

    По умолчанию

    13 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> Leave to remain with NRPF - change of conditions: http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/inform...onditions.aspx

    How to reinstate the ability to receive benefits following the Home Office's decision that the applicant cannot use the public funds

    >>> Helpful case on when failure to claim asylum in a safe country damages credibility: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/914.html

    Immigration judges must assess whether an asylum seeker had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in a safe third country before holding that a failure to do so should damage their credibility, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

    KA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 914 concerns an unaccompanied child from Afghanistan who fled to the UK via Hungary, amongst other EU countries. He was fingerprinted by the Hungarian authorities but continued traveling to the UK.

    The First-tier Tribunal decided that KA had not actually claimed asylum in Hungary and that this damaged his credibility. The Upper Tribunal went the other way, holding that KA had claimed asylum in Hungary, but that his failure to stay there and wait for the decision should be held against him.

    Neither tribunal considered the possibility that he had no reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in Hungary. The Upper Tribunal making this error was horrible because it had been made aware of the decision in Ibrahimi & Abasi v SSHD [2016] EWHC 2049 (Admin), which held that there were systemic failings in the Hungarian asylum system.

    This case should serve as a reminder to the tribunals to be cautious when finding that appellants should have claimed asylum elsewhere.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  4. #724

    По умолчанию

    14 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> Poor quality of the Home Office's decisions as 50% of all immigration appeals now succeed: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-to-march-2019

    The percentage of immigration decisions being reversed by judges is at its highest on record, new statistics show. Over 50% of appeals to the immigration tribunal — mostly challenges to Home Office refusals to allow people to stay in the UK — succeeded in the last financial year.

    The success rate on appeal has not dipped below 50% in any quarter since July-September 2017. The official data goes back over a decade, to 2007/08.

    Human rights appeals were the most likely to be allowed, with a 58% success rate last year. The “EEA Free Movement” category were also above 50%, while appeals in the third category — asylum — are consistently less likely to succeed.

    The percentages underscore the central role played by judges and the legal system in ensuring that immigration decisions are correctly made. They refer to the proportion of cases in which a determination was made, either after an oral hearing or on the papers. There were over 45,000 cases decided in 2018/19.

    Today’s figures, published by the Ministry of Justice, also show an continuing decline in the number of appeals lodged in the first place. There were around 44,000 case receipts in 2018/19, compared to 92,000 in 2014/15 and 146,000 in 2010/11.

    The average immigration appeal now takes 40 weeks to be decided, MoJ statisticians said. It used to take a year.

    You can avoid the hassles of the appeals by instructing the Legal Centre to help you with your immigration case from the outset. See https://legalcentre.org/Initial-Consultation.html

    >>> Tribunal says no to return of fast track asylum appeals: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...unal-rules-200

    Tribunal bosses have put their foot down on fast track asylum appeals, refusing the government’s push for an accelerated process for appellants in immigration detention. The Tribunal Procedure Committee said that it would not be re-introducing a system like the Detained Fast Track that the courts found to be unlawful back in 2015. It pointed out that any such system would need so many safeguards to maintain some semblance of due process that it wouldn’t speed things up anyway.

    The committee’s decision, published recently, is a victory for the seven expert organisations that responded to its consultation. All had opposed the return of Detained Fast Track.

    >>> UKVI Guidance: Registration as a British citizen: children of British parents: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...tent=immediate

    Guidance on applications for registration as a British citizen from children of British parents.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  5. #725

    По умолчанию

    18 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> Introducing eSolo: Supporting evidence self-upload: https://pos.tlscontact.com/abv_en/us...eid=1af5cd4d48

    "Customers applying for a UK visa will benefit from digital improvements to the UK visa application process. You will be able to self-upload your supporting evidence before attending your appointment at the Visa Application Centre (via Desktop or Mobile app).

    This new process allows customers to prepare their set of supporting evidence in advance. This development is made available to customers using both our Standard and Priority Visa services.

    If you wish to be assisted by our staff for the submission of your supporting evidence on the date of your visit to our Visa Application centre, you will have to select a specific appointment for an additional fee of 20 GBP (+VAT)."

    >>> UKVI Correspondence: National Savings Premium Bonds can be accepted as cash savings in an Appendix FM application

    From the Home Office:

    "We...can confirm that income in premium bonds can be accepted as evidence of cash savings as they can be obtained within a very short period. The account is deemed as an investment account and provided that the applicant can meet all the other requirements, like statements to confirm that the savings have been held for at least 6 months"

    >>> Home Office tries to tackle eGates problem that makes short-term study illegal

    Short-term students are supposed to see an immigration officer

    Under Part 3 of the Immigration Rules, non-visa nationals — that is, citizens of any country that is not on the visa national list at Appendix 2 of the Rules here, including all those mentioned above — can come to the UK for short-term study (‘STS’) of up to six months without getting a visa in advance. Those entering under this route also do not need to be sponsored under Tier 4 of the Points Based System.

    Instead, they can get immigration permission to study a short course directly from the Border Force officer on arrival in the UK. This is in the form of a stamp placed into the passport confirming that the student has the right to study under the STS route. (Anyone from a country on the visa national list and those planning to study English language for up to 11 months must apply for prior entry clearance.)

    Unfortunately the introduction of eGates has meant that some students who should have seen a Border Force officer and been entered into the UK under the STS route have instead come in through an eGate. This means that they are in the UK as a visitor, not a student.

    This is important because under Appendix V of the Immigration Rules, anyone who is in the UK as a visitor can only study in the UK for up to 30 days during their visit providing study is not the main purpose for their visit (unless they are a school child on an educational visit or exchange).
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  6. #726

    По умолчанию

    19 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> Supreme Court finds UK breached residence rights of hundreds of thousands of EU citizens: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0008.html

    The Supreme Court has today dismissed the Home Office appeal in the case of Gubeladze [2019] UKSC 31. The judgment affects hundreds of thousands of EU citizens from the so-called Accession Eight (or “A8”) countries that joined the EU in 2004 and means that the United Kingdom unlawfully imposed a registration system, known as the Worker Registration Scheme, on these citizens between 2009 and 2011.

    The issue in this case was not whether it was lawful to impose transitional arrangements at all but whether the particular transitional arrangements that were imposed were lawful. Mrs Gubeladze argued that the requirements of the Worker Registration Scheme were disproportionate in EU law, imposing too heavy a burden on EU citizens and on employers for very little purpose.

    The scheme created a criminal offence for employers, the cost for workers was £90 and evidence suggested that non-compliance by relevant workers, which was likely accidental in almost all cases, was as high as 33%. Non-compliance would affect entitlement to claim benefits, acquisition of permanent residence and, ultimately, eligibility for British citizenship.

    Implications of the judgment in practice

    The judgment means that the extension of the Worker Registration Scheme between 2009 and 2011 was unlawful. In turn, this suggests several things:

    - All those A8 EU citizens who paid the £90 fee to register between 2009 and 2011 should in theory be refunded their payments. A fee needed to be paid for every job, so a person moving between jobs may have had to make several payments.
    - EU citizens who sought permanent residence on the basis of five years’ lawful residence and were refused because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 were wrongly refused permanent residence.
    - EU citizens who were refused British citizenship for not meeting either the residence or good character requirements because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 should ask for their decisions to be reconsidered.
    - Any retirees denied benefits and permanent residence because of non-compliance with the WRS between 2009 and 2011, like Mrs Gubeladze herself, should ask that these decisions be reconsidered and seek legal advice on whether they are eligible for back payments.
    - Anyone convicted of the criminal offences associated with the WRS between 2009 and 2011 should consider getting legal advice to see if their conviction might be overturned.

    Over 100,000 people applied to the WRS in 2009 alone, government figures show.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  7. #727

    По умолчанию

    20 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> UKVI Guidance: Rights and status of frontier workers in the UK after Brexit: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ier-workers--2
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  8. #728

    По умолчанию

    21 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> UKVI Guidance Collection: DNA evidence in immigration applications: review information: https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...tent=immediate

    Information for applicants who may have been asked to provide DNA evidence to support their immigration application.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  9. #729

    По умолчанию

    24 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> UKVI Guidance: Short-term students: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...tent=immediate

    Guidance on how short-term student applications for entry clearance or leave to enter are considered.

    >>> Upper Tribunal has power to set aside grant of judicial review permission: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1014.html

    The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Upper Tribunal has the same power as the High Court to set aside a decision to grant permission for judicial review. In R (Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1014, the Upper Tribunal set aside an earlier grant of permission because the Home Office had been prevented from attending the permission hearing due to a misunderstanding.

    >>> Court of Appeal quashes clearly unfounded certificate in Albanian asylum claim: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/951.html

    This week the Court of Appeal quashed the certification of an Albanian asylum claim as “clearly unfounded”. In SP (Albania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 951, the court found that the Home Office had not properly investigated the appellant’s account of being persecuted before deciding to certify the claim under section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, contrary to its own policy on certification.

    The court also gave helpful guidance on issuing “clearly unfounded” certificates, stating that the Home Office cannot certify asylum claims without first giving proper attention to all salient features of the case. Certificates under section 94(2) should only be given if, after assessing all the facts and the evidence provided, it’s clear that the claim is so clearly without substance that it is “bound to fail”, as was held in ZL & VL v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 25.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

  10. #730

    По умолчанию

    25 June 2019 – Just useful and interesting UK & EEA Immigration Law news and updates from the Legal Centre – Open 7 days a week - www.legalcentre.org – Mob : +44(0)7791145923

    >>> Indefinite leave to remain in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/indefini...tent=immediate

    This guidance provides information about what it means to have indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK, also known as settlement.

    >>> MAC to advise on future salary thresholds: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/h...tent=immediate

    From the Government's announcement:

    "The Home Secretary Sajid Javid has today (Monday 24 June) asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review and advise on salary thresholds for the future immigration system, which will start to take effect from 2021.

    The Migration Advisory Committee previously recommended that the government should retain the existing minimum salary thresholds in the future immigration system, which includes paying experienced workers at least £30,000, and new entrants (including recent graduates) at least £20,800.
    The Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to consider how future salary thresholds should be calculated, the levels of salary thresholds, whether there is a case for regional salary thresholds for different parts of the UK, and whether there should be exceptions to salary thresholds, for example because they’ve newly started the occupation or because they work in an occupation in shortage.

    After publishing plans for the new skills-based immigration system in December 2018, the government has embarked on a year-long engagement programme with business and employers up and down the UK.

    In the white paper, the government said it would engage with businesses and employers on the salary threshold. Since then, the Home Office has held over 100 events across the UK, engaging 1,500 stakeholders representing businesses and employers. It has also set up five advisory groups to deepen engagement between government and industry.

    The new immigration system will mark the end of free movement and introduce a new route for skilled workers which favours experience and talent over nationality.
    It already includes measures designed to support business, such as:

    -removing the cap on skilled worker numbers
    - speeding up processing times for work visas
    - scrapping resident labour market tests
    - widening the skills thresholds so that anyone with the equivalent of A levels can apply under the new skilled workers route

    To help organisations adjust to the new system, as a transitional measure, there will be a temporary work route allowing workers from some countries to come for a year and work, open to all skill levels.

    The Migration Advisory Committee is expected to report back by January 2020 when the government will consider all the evidence before finalising plans. The new immigration system will be phased in from 2021.

    >>> Extended family members denied an appeal can go ahead and lodge one: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2019/194.html

    Banger (EEA: EFM – Right of Appeal) [2019] UKUT 194 (IAC) has finally reached the end of the road. This is the case that went up to the Court of Justice of the European Union on, essentially, two issues:

    - Does the Surinder Singh route apply to durable parters? and
    - Are extended family members entitled to a full appeal on the merits, rather than a judicial review on an error of law?

    The CJEU said “yes” to both, as we reported at the time: Court of Justice finds Surinder Singh applies to extended family members.

    The case has now returned to the Upper Tribunal for a final decision, some six years after Ms Banger was first refused a residence card. Those who benefit from this decision should spare a thought for the stress, inconvenience and cost to which the lead litigant has been exposed over these years and the hard work put in by her legal team.

    The Home Office had already agreed to issue a residence card to Ms Banger (although failed to actually issue it). The appeal nevertheless proceeded at Ms Banger’s request.

    There is a tranche of extended family members who have been denied a proper sta***ory right of appeal. After the disastrously wrong Sala case, extended family members were wrongly denied a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Once Sala was overturned, those affected could go ahead and lodge an appeal and request an extension of time.

    In the meantime, though, the Home Office had brought into effect the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which denied the same right of appeal on a sta***ory basis. An amendment conferring a right of appeal under the 2016 regulations was eventually laid in response to the CJEU Banger judgment. This right of appeal was not retrospective, though, meaning that there were an unknown number of people who received decisions under the 2016 regulations before the amendment took effect who had no sta***ory right of appeal.

    The tribunal says those affected can do one of two things:

    - Ask the Home Office for a new decision and then appeal that, or
    - Just get on with it and lodge an appeal, making sure an extension of time is requested"

    The second option is quicker and more convenient and is available because of the direct effect of EU law and the terms of the CJEU Banger judgment.

    >>> Work visa refusal based on “genuine vacancy” rule declared irrational: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1019.html

    Where a company sponsors a worker from overseas to fill a vacancy in the UK they must only do so if that vacancy is “genuine”.

    The case of R (Suny) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1019 arose from a disagreement between a sponsored worker and the Home Office about the genuineness of a vacancy that a sponsoring company was attempting to fill.

    Unusually in this case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the visa applicant that the Secretary of State had crossed the “notoriously high” irrationality threshold in deciding that no genuine vacancy existed.
    Помощь русскоговорящего адвоката высшей категории: консультации, проверка заявлений, ведение дел: www.legalcentre.org Mob/Viber/WhatsApp:+44(0)77 911 45 923, Skype: immigration_lawyer

Страница 73 из 79 ПерваяПервая ... 23637172737475 ... ПоследняяПоследняя

Информация о теме

Пользователи, просматривающие эту тему

Тема просмтрена более 10K раз

Ваши права

  • Вы не можете создавать новые темы
  • Вы не можете отвечать в темах
  • Вы не можете прикреплять вложения
  • Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения
  •