10yr Long residence to be removed in April 2008

[iceman010899]

Hello

There are rumours going around that the 10yr long residence rule will be taken off the immigration rules in April 2008. This is in line with the new points system. Every April they tend to look and modify immigration rules I guess.

Anyone else heard about this ?

[jes2jes]

Hello

There are rumours going around that the 10yr long residence rule will be taken off the immigration rules in April 2008. This is in line with the new points system. Every April they tend to look and modify immigration rules I guess.

Anyone else heard about this ?

Please do not spread rumours without any facts. Guess because you are due for ILR based on the LRC you are finding rumour mongering as part of your 'anxiety'.

The LRC is now enshrined in the Immigration Rules and therefore if I am not crazy cannot just be repealed without a Judicial Review or an Act of Parliament (Am I taking it too far?).

Get glass of cold water, drink and relax. It is safe for you until the 'Tories take over the country'

[William Blake]

Except that Gordon Brown is just a tory in labours clothing. Or rather a BNP activist.

At any rate the ten year rule has already been removed - in effect. If what they are saying is that they are stringent about the new interpretation including the gaps between visas then effectively under these current changes the vast majority of long term residents now do not qualify.

Is there no legal way of challlenging the new interpretation then. If an applicant is refused and has remaining leave then they will get a reconsideration. But is it possible to initiate legal action against the home office if an appeal is not granted ?

[JAJ]

The LRC is now enshrined in the Immigration Rules and therefore if I am not crazy cannot just be repealed without a Judicial Review or an Act of Parliament (Am I taking it too far?).

An Act of Parliament is not needed to amend the Immigration Rules. I am open to correction but the government can change the Immigration Rules any time they like so long as it is within the authority given by the Immigration Act 1971.

[jes2jes]

The LRC is now enshrined in the Immigration Rules and therefore if I am not crazy cannot just be repealed without a Judicial Review or an Act of Parliament (Am I taking it too far?).

An Act of Parliament is not needed to amend the Immigration Rules. I am open to correction but the government can change the Immigration Rules any time they like so long as it is within the authority given by the Immigration Act 1971.

Thanks for this and that is the reason why I put in brackets whether I was taking it too far because I was not sure

[avjones]

The LRC is now enshrined in the Immigration Rules and therefore if I am not crazy cannot just be repealed without a Judicial Review or an Act of Parliament (Am I taking it too far?).

You aren't crazy, but you aren't right either!

The Immigration Rules are a statutory instrument, and are delegated legislation. The Home Secretary can indeed change them, under the Act, subject to proper procedures etc. There is no need for further primary legislation.

As an example, the Special Voucher Holder rules were deleted a few years ago.

A judicial review has nothing to do with legislative changes either. This is an action which can be brought against a public decision-maker, on the grounds that the decision is ultra vires (outside the maker's power) proceedurally unfair, or Wednesbury unreasonable.

[jes2jes]

The LRC is now enshrined in the Immigration Rules and therefore if I am not crazy cannot just be repealed without a Judicial Review or an Act of Parliament (Am I taking it too far?).

You aren't crazy, but you aren't right either!

The Immigration Rules are a statutory instrument, and are delegated legislation. The Home Secretary can indeed change them, under the Act, subject to proper procedures etc. There is no need for further primary legislation.

As an example, the Special Voucher Holder rules were deleted a few years ago.

A judicial review has nothing to do with legislative changes either. This is an action which can be brought against a public decision-maker, on the grounds that the decision is ultra vires (outside the maker's power) proceedurally unfair, or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Thanks Amanda for letting me know I am sane
Guess I missed the terminologies trying to flex the little terms in my head I learnt during my brush with 'Business Law' in Uni. Funny enough, I am interested in the Law and God being so good, I might study for the bar when I hit forty years and have retired after a successful career path so that I can relax and help the needy and the disadvantaged in society with my knowledge

Thanks anyway, always glad to have help.

[avjones]

Guess I missed the terminologies trying to flex the little terms in my head I learnt during my brush with 'Business Law' in Uni. Funny enough, I am interested in the Law and God being so good, I might study for the bar when I hit forty years and have retired after a successful career path so that I can relax and help the needy and the disadvantaged in society with my knowledge

I've never studied any business or commercial law, so don't ask me about any of that

I did a standard LLB, which meant I studied the compulsary elements of tort, contract, English legal system, trusts, property, crime, and European law. My university (UCL) made us all study jurisprudence as well, and my options were evidence law, media law, contempt of court, and history of English law. I did an LLM at UCL as well, the history of Western European law, administrative law, international human rights, and international criminal law. SO if you come across any dark ages Englishmen, or Visigoths, who need legal help, I'm your girl!

I now do mostly immigration law (a lot of it is High Court, and Court of Appeal) and immigration-related crime.

[jes2jes]

Guess I missed the terminologies trying to flex the little terms in my head I learnt during my brush with 'Business Law' in Uni. Funny enough, I am interested in the Law and God being so good, I might study for the bar when I hit forty years and have retired after a successful career path so that I can relax and help the needy and the disadvantaged in society with my knowledge

I've never studied any business or commercial law, so don't ask me about any of that

I did a standard LLB, which meant I studied the compulsary elements of tort, contract, English legal system, trusts, property, crime, and European law. My university (UCL) made us all study jurisprudence as well, and my options were evidence law, media law, contempt of court, and history of English law. I did an LLM at UCL as well, the history of Western European law, administrative law, international human rights, and international criminal law. SO if you come across any dark ages Englishmen, or Visigoths, who need legal help, I'm your girl!

I now do mostly immigration law (a lot of it is High Court, and Court of Appeal) and immigration-related crime.

Well, that is a nice list of legal stuff you have under your belt 'girl'. The only stuff on your list I came across in BL are Contract, Tort, English Legal System and a little Criminal Law but that was quite some time ago (mern! I am getting old).

Two days ago, I was in a friends firm (He is a solicitor) to sort out some stuff for my better half and I got myself a little 'job' to go over to help in the office so I might pick up a thing or two and wet my appetite for the law. We shall see.

I might one day apply to volunteer in your practice if you have room for handome dudes like my wonderful self

[avjones]

<primly> we don't discriminate on the basis of looks <primly>

We are quite a mixed set - there are 11 of us. Of those 11, 4 are women, and 3 are ethnic minorities. So there are only 4 white men in the group of 11!

[Wanderer]

I did Tort! And company and contract law and, err Christ, forgot...

We spent AGES on the Sale of Goods Act, but I still remember the classic cases, the old Carbolic Smoke Ball company, one sth to do with Ashbury Carriages, the Cotman and Brougham clause (independant objects!!)

And Donahue vs Stevens! I've totally forgotten what that was about.

Was there one about Lloyds and a waterline?

[avjones]

And Donahue vs Stevens! I've totally forgotten what that was about.

How can you have forgotten? It's the snail in the ginger beer case!

[John]

The Immigration Rules are a statutory instrument, and are delegated legislation.

Yes they are delegated legislation, but no they are not a statutory instrument, and the Home Office when asked refused to put them in the form of a SI.

They are a House of Commons command paper, and yes can be changed at the whim of the Government.

OK this is four years ago but exactly this subject came up in a House of Commons adjournment debate ..... click here ..... and also read the next section which is the Minister's reply. There you will see that the Government declines to make the immigration rules into statutory instruments.

How do I know so much about that particular adjournment debate? Sion Simon is my MP .... and I substantial wrote the speech that he gave that date ..... and also the earlier written questions referred to in "his" speech. I particularly enjoyed the Minister's comment .... "He demonstrates a commendable and remarkable depth of knowledge of a detailed and technical subject." ..... which as regards my MP back in 2003 was absolutely not true!

Edit : Just spotted a rather interesting sentence in the Minister's speech, at column 925 :-

Changes to the rules cannot apply retrospectively, and the date from which they take effect is always shown on the statement of changes.

-: something that those fighting the more recent change for WP, HSMP etc holders hit by the change from 4 years to 5 years .... might like to look more closely at!

[VictoriaS]

I'm going to have nightmares about Carbolic Soap now....

But John, the point about the date is that that date is always the date of consideration, not the date of application. It was slightly different with the HSMP cases, but in terms of visa applications rather than IED applications, that caveat doesn't help.

Victoria

[Wanderer]

I'm going to have nightmares about Carbolic Soap now....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v. ... ll_Company

Enjoy!

[John]

But John, the point about the date is that that date is always the date of consideration, not the date of application.

Victoria, I don't see how that is relevant. As from 01.04.03 spouse visas started to be issued for 2 years as against one year previously. And as from 01.04.03 the Immigration Rules stated that ILR could be applied for after 2 years ... by holders of spouse visas.

And there we have the Minister stating that transitional rules not needed.

Just to illustrate, say 1-year spouse visa issued say 01.12.02. ILR is applied for say in November 2003 .... at a time when the immigration rules stated that ILR could be applied for after 2 years.

So I still think this is highly relevant to those fighting the move from 4 years to 5 years for HSMP etc holders.