Family Immigration

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) has cleared up a significant misunderstanding of the requirements to be met by children coming to the UK for settlement.

An earlier decision of the Tribunal in a case called OM had been wrongly taken to mean that children coming to the UK for settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain, ILR) would need to demonstrate evidence that the carer in the country of origin had given lawful consent to their coming to the UK or that a court order allowing the child to be taken out of the county had been made and that the child had to be registered with a local social services department in the UK. This was not the case.

The UK Home Office has announced changes to the way in which it handles legal challenges in cases where people are about to be removed from the UK.

When a person has no leave to be in the UK, for example because they have entered illegally or because they have stayed longer than was permitted by the leave they were given, they may face removal from the UK. In such cases, a decision to remove them will be made. This decision can be challenged in limited circumstances, for example if the person asserts that to remove them from the UK would be a breach of their human rights.

The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office has for a long time had a policy of allowing people who have been in the UK for a very long time to settle (get Indefinite Leave to Remain, ILR) in the country.

This case was brought by two children aged nearly 7 and 12, from India, who wanted to join their Portuguese grandfather exercising his rights of free movement under European law to be in the UK. They had been refused a 'family permit', which is the name for the immigration document required family members of EEA nationals (as opposed to a a visa, or entry clearance, which would be required by a foreign national) by an Entry Clearance Officer at the the British High Commission in Bombay.

From 5 February 2007, people applying in Ghana and Kenya for visas to come to the UK for more than 6 months have been required to submit a certificate confirming that they do not have infectious tuberculosis (TB).

In a decision dated 12 February 2007, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) has reviewed the position on adoption and UK law. This was a reconsideration of a decision by an immigration judge of the AIT upholding a decision of an Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) in India to refuse the appellant (MN) entry clearance (a visa) to come to the UK as an adopted child.

In a decision given on 31 January 2007, the UK Court of Appeal gave the appellant permission to appeal against a refusal to grant her indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the dependent relative of a person present and settled in the UK.

The UK parliament is examining new proposals for legislation on immigration and asylum: the UK Borders Bill.

A Committee in the House of Commons in the UK parliament starts to examine the proposed legislation on 27 February. The Committee has announced that it will hear evidence from the Home Office, from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the Immigration Advisory Service, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Transport and General Workers’ Union and from National Car Parks.

UKvisas published the report of the Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance on 11 January. The report examines how British embassies and consulates abroad are deciding applications to come to the UK in cases where the person has no right of appeal if refused. The UK government made a statement about the report in parliament on 15 January.

From 15 January 2007 some overseas visitors who previously had to pay for medical treatment will no longer have to pay. The people affected are:
Missionaries and their spouses, civil partners and children.