immigration

25
Nov

Changes to Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visas, November 2015

Changes to Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)

Minor changes to Tier 1 have been made in regards to the Genuine Entrepreneur Test for initial applications, such as, the Secretary of State can now make an assessment based on previous investment made in the UK by an applicant.

25
Nov

Changes to Tier 2 visas, November 2015

Changes to Tier 2 – Premium Service Centre

Since 12 November 2015, applicants who submit their application for consideration via the Premium Service Centre, can only now submit applications online, as the paper application form will be removed from the gov.uk website. The completed online application must be send off to the Home Office afterwards.

Changes to Tier 2 – Dependants

The above will also apply to Tier 2 Dependants, the paper form will be removed and substituted by the online service. In respect of Tier 1 and Tier 5 dependants, the paper format application will remain as it was.

23
Oct

Mandalia v SSHD [2015] UKSC 59

The case Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59 can be pivotal example in regards to whether the Presenting Officer has a duty to apply evidential flexibility or it is just a mere power. In this case, the Court of Appeal said: “power”, however, the Supreme Court said: “a duty”.

From August 2009, evidential flexibility was embraced, which allows applicants to repair the deficit in their evidence or correct minor errors in applications for Tier 1, 2, 4 and 5 main and dependent applicants.

The flexible process instruction falls into 19 steps, four of which relevant to the above mentioned case, which the caseworker has to undertake when there is missing evidence or minor errors in the application:

  1. It needs to be identified whether there was missing evidence, if yes the caseworker must proceed to step two;
  2. It needs to clarified whether the application would be refused even if the missing evidence was rendered, if no, the caseworker must proceed to step three;
  3. The caseworkers request for additional documents in certain circumstances, where they are assured that the missing evidence exists, e.g. listed in Annex A (not exhaustive);
  4. In step four, the caseworker is to discuss the uncertainty with his line manager. Benefits should be counted towards the applicant if the line manager has reasonable grounds to believe that the missing evidence exists or even unsure, thus the evidence should be requested in step five by contacting the applicant.

It was held that the Home Office’s refusal was unlawful as there was not any attempt firstly to invite Mr Mandalia to correct minor error specifically to repair the deficit in his evidence. Therefore, the court should allow this appeal, and annul the refusal of Mr Mandalia’s application.

20
Jul

Home Office’s lack of clarity in asylum cases

Due to the recent changes in immigration laws, applicants are finding it increasingly more and more difficult to work out the Home Office’s criteria for approving visas. This is most apparent in asylum cases where applicants must go to desperate lengths to prove their suffering and destitution. As the tragic case of an asylum seeker and her baby who starved to death whilst waiting for their papers to be processed demonstrates, the constant rule changing can lead to dire consequences. It’s why at Barar and Associates we keep up to date of all rule changes in a number of different ways. We also strive to help our asylum seekers clients, who statistically are amongst the poorest members of British society, as much as we can to ensure that their case is approved.

X
Send A Message to Khayrullo Abdullaev




X
Send A Message to Zareen Haque




X
Send A Message to Julie Kieffer




X
Send A Message to Pam Barar