Featured Articles

As part of the continuing harmonization of the determination of asylum applications by member states of the European Union (the “EU”) the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 and HC 82, a statement of changes in the immigration rules, both came into force this month.

Immigration Judges (they used to be called Adjudicators) consider the appeals of people whose applications, whether for asylum or for visas to come to the United Kingdom, have been refused by the Secretary of State.  In the course of making their determinations either in favour of or against Appellants they make findings of fact.  In AA (Somalia) & AH (Iran) v Secretary of State  [2007] EWCA Civ 1040 (25-10-2007) the Court of Appeal had to deal with the difficulties which are created by different Immigration Judges making different findings of fact concerning the same events.  The issue is starkly illustrated by Lord Justice Ward’s example:

Employers will be moved to the front line of immigration law enforcement in an effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration to the UK. The Home Office will require that employers check the legal status of their current and potential staff or face stiff penalties involving on the spot fines of up to £10,000 plus unlimited fines and gaol terms for knowingly employing workers illegally.

At about this time in 2006 Gherson reported the Home Office’s changes to the qualifying criteria (and to the relevant immigration rules) for leave to enter under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP).  The changes increased the quota of points applicants needed to score in order to obtain leave to enter.   Points which had been awarded under the previous tariff for work experience obtained in an applicant’s country of origin were no longer available.  

The Border and Immigration Agency (the “BIA”) has published its “statement of intent” regarding Tier 1 of its Points Based System.  Tier 1 is due to be implemented in the first quarter of 2008.  

The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords has allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others (FC)  [2007] UKHL 49.  

Following urgent legal intervention by Gherson solicitors a student has resisted his removal from the UK after his leave to remain as a student was wrongly cancelled by an immigration officer.   His leave is shortly to be reinstated and he is now awaiting the outcome of his application for an extension of stay as a highly skilled migrant.  

In its judgment (R (on the application of BAPIO Ltd & another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Department of Health [2007] EWCA Civ 1139) on 9 November 2007 the Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by BAPIO (the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin) against its unsuccessful application for judicial review of guidance issued by the Department of Health.  

Young nationals of countries listed at Appendix 3 of the immigration rules can apply to come to the United Kingdom as “working holidaymakers” under immigration rule 95. These countries have reciprocal agreements with the UK. The people who may apply are Commonwealth citizens and those from other countries with historic links to the UK.