While it is generally true that it is Parliament that makes the law, in this case, it is not strictly true. Significant powers are given by Parliament to ministers to make rules, regulations and orders that have the same force of law.zabizabi wrote:...the rules are not made by HOME OFFICE or case worker.Its the parliament who make such kind of decision by voting, ...The new rules are law and the court can't win from Parliament(lawmaker) , they can only suggest not only for you but for everyone.(Remember the spouse financial requirement case)
The British Nationality Act 1981 only states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the applicant is of "good character". What good character means is left to the Secretary of State to define. The rules introduced in December 2014 were made by ministers and were not even reviewed by Parliament. Most other immigration rule changes have to be laid before Parliament for 40 days and can be debated if a lot of MPs want a debate.
Because this was not a rule change, but a change in the definition of what it means to be of "good character", the ministers at the Home Office could make the change without any review.
On the point of the lawyer, that lawyer is either unscrupulous, in which case he needs to be reported to the Law Society, or he is totally briliant, in which case, he is seriously undercharging.
