The latest quarterly statistics on net migration have been released today with some interesting news in the Tier 1 category. This blog will look at what the statistics show about Tier 1 Entrepreneur and Investor applications.
Immigration Barristers' Blog
Welcome to the blog of Richmond Chambers, where our immigration barristers provide updates and commentary on the latest developments in UK immigration law. Contact us to find out how our immigration barristers can help you achieve a successful outcome to your immigration case.
Appendix SN is a new appendix to the Immigration Rules introduced by Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC877 and deals with service by the Home Office of various decisions in relation to immigration matters. It has effect for all applications made on or after 6 April 2016 and for some applications submitted before that date. It has the potential to infect almost every area of immigration practice.
The government has published a consultation paper proposing new fees for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 21 April 2016. Asylum and immigration tribunal fees are set to increase by more than 500% in order to help pay off the Ministry of Justice’s funding deficit.
Following our review at the end of 2015, this article will discuss some of the case law relevant to Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa applicants. Information about the recent changes to the rules and the most recent statistics for entrepreneur applications can be found in other articles.
The Immigration Act 2014 makes provision for the Home Office to investigate whether marriages may be sham marriages or marriages of convenience during an extended notice. This is the period after the couple have notified the registrar of their intention to marry and before the marriage is able to take place. If a decision is made to investigate, the notice period will be extended from 28 days to 70 days.
In Katsonga ("Slip Rule"; FtT's general powers)  UKUT 228 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal reviewed the ambit of rule 31 of the First-tier Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014 (often referred to as the ‘Slip Rule’) and found that the rule cannot be used to reverse the effect of a decision at the instance of a losing party.
NA is a citizen of Pakistan, and was married to a German national from 2003 until a purported talaq divorce in March 2007, with divorce proceedings in the UK instituted by NA in September 2008, with decree absolute issued on 4 August 2009. NA and her husband moved to the UK in March 2004, she was the victim of domestic violence and finally left the matrimonial home around October 2006. NA’s husband left the UK in December 2006. Two German children were born to the couple in November 2005 and February 2007, and NA was granted custody of both children following divorce. Both children are attending school within the UK.
On 29 March 2016, a new Instruction for Home Office staff was published:‘European Economic Area administrative removal: consideration and decision’. The guidance explains the operational process for assessing whether to administratively remove a European Economic Area (EEA) national (or a family member of an EEA national).
In Khan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 416 (04 May 2016) the principal issue that the Court of Appeal considered was whether only “official” documents were required to support an application for indefinite leave on the basis of continuous long residence or whether non-official but “independent” documents would suffice.
Following the coming into force of the Immigration Act 2014 and the significant changes to the rights of appeal this introduced, the use of Administrative Review as a means of challenging a decision of the Home Office refusing leave to enter or remain is becoming increasingly common....
In Onowu, R (on the application of) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (extension of time for appealing: principles) (IJR) UKUT 185 (IAC) (31 March 2016) the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) considered the correct approach a Tribunal should take when faced with an application for an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal.
Establishing whether or not someone born on or after 1 January 1983 is a British citizen, or may be registered as a British citizen, can be a complex process – not least because the nationality of at least one of the parents also needs to be established. When that person is born through a surrogacy arrangement matters can become more complex, particularly when the surrogacy arrangement includes an overseas element.
The Free Movement of Persons Directive 2004/38 EC sets out the right of EEA nationals and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the EEA Member States. The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 (‘2006 Regulations’) (as amended) transpose the Free Movement Directive into UK law. The Regulations describe the rights of EEA nationals and their family members to enter and reside in the UK.
In Tukhas (para 245HD(f): "appropriate salary") Russia UKUT 183 (IAC) (17 March 2016) the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) considered the correct interpretation of paragraph 14 of Appendix J of the Immigration Rules (codes of practice for skilled work) when a decision is being made whether or not an applicant has an appropriate salary for the purposes of extending leave as a Tier 2 migrant, with reference to paragraph 79 of Appendix A.
In January 2016 the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published its review into the Tier 2 visa category. The Government has now published its response. A number of changes are set out, and all changes are due to be implemented by April 2017, with some being implemented in autumn 2016. The Government has also said that it intends to simplify the relevant Immigration Rules and Tier 2 guidance.
Long waiting lists for the hearing of Tribunal appeals have recently become a key focal point for discussion. Delays in listing inevitably cause added anxiety for the individuals involved and can result in families being separated for longer than they ever may have anticipated. For some individuals there can be irreversible consequences.