New 'blacklist' periods for overstayers

Mr Rusty · Post by **Mr Rusty** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:42 am

In reply to the 2 previous posts, the proposed Rules do say that if you overstay (or enter illegally), and leave voluntarily (i.e. without being arrested and served with a notice that you have committed an offence), any application within 1 year would automatically be refused.

Sally12345 raises an interesting point, because the corollary of imposing such a ban might be that it could be deemed unreasonable to refuse someone who waited a year and then sought entry or entry clearance solely on the grounds of their offence. I think such a refusal could be subject to judicial challenge. The IO or ECO might include the offence as evidence that someone did not intend to comply with their visa, but only in conjunction with other matters.

But that is speculation on my part, who knows what will happen. As always when new laws are introduced, particularly in the field of immigration, the biggest gainers are the lawyers.

chrissy · Post by **chrissy** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:27 am

Thanks for the clarification, Mr Rusty.

So just out of curiosity, would it be advisable to make clear that we are aware of these laws in the letters included in our application or would it be detrimental? Maybe interpreted as 'cockyness'?

sally12345 · Post by **sally12345** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:30 pm

Mr Rusty wrote:In reply to the 2 previous posts, the proposed Rules do say that if you overstay (or enter illegally), and leave voluntarily (i.e. without being arrested and served with a notice that you have committed an offence), any application within 1 year would automatically be refused.

Sally12345 raises an interesting point, because the corollary of imposing such a ban might be that it could be deemed unreasonable to refuse someone who waited a year and then sought entry or entry clearance solely on the grounds of their offence. I think such a refusal could be subject to judicial challenge. The IO or ECO might include the offence as evidence that someone did not intend to comply with their visa, but only in conjunction with other matters.

But that is speculation on my part, who knows what will happen. As always when new laws are introduced, particularly in the field of immigration, the biggest gainers are the lawyers.

Hello Mr Rusty, Thankyou and I also just wanted to ask if an overstayer returning home at the airport given a stamp in his/her passoprt something like overstayer/illegal entrant would this also have an affect on the case? just wondered as I know a friend that wants to return but is scared! Thanks

yankeegirl · Post by **yankeegirl** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:40 pm

Hello Mr Rusty, Thankyou and I also just wanted to ask if an overstayer returning home at the airport given a stamp in his/her passoprt something like overstayer/illegal entrant would this also have an affect on the case? just wondered as I know a friend that wants to return but is scared! Thanks

If it happens after these new rules come into effect, I think it would. It states a one year ban if the individual leaves voluntarily, 10 years if given a deportation/removal order. The way I read it, is if someone was served with a IS151 at the airport when leaving, he/she has been served with a removal order and then would be subject to the 10 year ban. It really sucks, and I hope I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I see it.

sally12345 · Post by **sally12345** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:53 pm

yankeegirl wrote:
Hello Mr Rusty, Thankyou and I also just wanted to ask if an overstayer returning home at the airport given a stamp in his/her passoprt something like overstayer/illegal entrant would this also have an affect on the case? just wondered as I know a friend that wants to return but is scared! Thanks
If it happens after these new rules come into effect, I think it would. It states a one year ban if the individual leaves voluntarily, 10 years if given a deportation/removal order. The way I read it, is if someone was served with a IS151 at the airport when leaving, he/she has been served with a removal order and then would be subject to the 10 year ban. It really sucks, and I hope I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I see it.

Hiya OMG OMG you are so right this could mean that if leaves and is served with such an order at the airport then of course it would be a 10 year ban.. and what sacres me is that everyone I know gets stop and has a stamp in the passport so what should as overstayer do? this is madness man pure madness and your right it sucks big time.... xxxx

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:37 pm

This is a good question, and one which hasn't been address at all. I am hoping that ILPA will get on board with this. If it turns out that someone leaving voluntarily could still get a 10 year ban then no one will ever leave.

Victoria

yankeegirl · Post by **yankeegirl** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:35 pm

This is a good question, and one which hasn't been address at all. I am hoping that ILPA will get on board with this. If it turns out that someone leaving voluntarily could still get a 10 year ban then no one will ever leave.

Exactly. I've never seen the point of issuing a removal order to someone who is already leaving, but maybe that's just me. And I certainly don't see the point in it now other than to keep people out for 10 years. I don't even know what the word would be for it. Obnoxious? Cruel? Sadistic?

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:08 pm

Then that would make no iota of sense (to me, anyway) as someone who is being removed at the expense of the public will get a removal order, anyway and that only carries a 5 year ban. Except of course the home office would be so generous as to not serve a notice...

10 years should be for those who have had a deportation order and an arrangement for their removal has been made(Say a date has been set for their removal).

How would the HO know if someone has overstayed their visa anyway if they are not served with a removal notice or stopped at the airport?

RobinLondon · Post by **RobinLondon** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:59 pm

Twin wrote:How would the HO know if someone has overstayed their visa anyway if they are not served with a removal notice or stopped at the airport?

Biometric ID cards! Or so they say...

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:04 pm

yankeegirl wrote:
Hello Mr Rusty, Thankyou and I also just wanted to ask if an overstayer returning home at the airport given a stamp in his/her passoprt something like overstayer/illegal entrant would this also have an affect on the case? just wondered as I know a friend that wants to return but is scared! Thanks
If it happens after these new rules come into effect, I think it would. It states a one year ban if the individual leaves voluntarily, 10 years if given a deportation/removal order. The way I read it, is if someone was served with a IS151 at the airport when leaving, he/she has been served with a removal order and then would be subject to the 10 year ban. It really sucks, and I hope I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I see it.

Yankeegirl, it actually says 10 years if the offender was removed or deported.

By removed, I take it that it means, physical removal.

Also, a removal order would have to have been served. I doubt that an IS151A or B are removal orders (notice of intention and decision, yes!)

IS151D is an order for removal - i think? So those who haven't received that should only be banned for a year or 5 at most if they were removed with public money.

Hernancortes · Post by **Hernancortes** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:16 pm

They can bring in the most draconian laws in the world but it will NOT solve the issue at hand. People are only here for the chance to earn a living and remit monies home to pay for education, health care, business opportunities and feed their families.

Until the inequalities between the west and developing countries are addressed, migration cannot be halted into the west.

Put up barriers, use the royal navy, id cards etc. None of these will reduce the movement of people into the UK. Unless there's a recession.

paulp · Post by **paulp** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:39 am

Hernancortes wrote:They can bring in the most draconian laws in the world but it will NOT solve the issue at hand. People are only here for the chance to earn a living and remit monies home to pay for education, health care, business opportunities and feed their families.

Until the inequalities between the west and developing countries are addressed, migration cannot be halted into the west.
Put up barriers, use the royal navy, id cards etc. None of these will reduce the movement of people into the UK. Unless there's a recession.

In essence, you are right. The difference in earnings will always be a strong driver for illegal immigration. However, the UK has been very very lax lately with the removal of exit control in the mid 90s.

We had a case on the board recently of a person who overstayed their visas so many times but kept getting visitor visas to come back till he was almost eligible for 14 years ILR. That was a real joke of Border Control in the UK.

With the restoration of exit control and ID cards, that will close the door to easy immigration violations and will certainly reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Come on, anybody can improve on the current situation.

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:17 pm

The bad news is...this has been addressed...and BIA have said that those given removal notices whilst they are about to leave voluntarily are still stuffed for 10 years like everyone else...

...sorry guys.

Victoria

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:59 pm

VictoriaS wrote:The bad news is...this has been addressed...and BIA have said that those given removal notices whilst they are about to leave voluntarily are still stuffed for 10 years like everyone else...

...sorry guys.

Victoria

Probably the worst news of my life!

How did they explain those who leave voluntarily on public funds, then? Does it mean that those didn't leave after 28 and calls the HO for assistance to leave only gets 5 years? Is it really possible for the HO to pay their air fare and not issue them with a removal notice?

Very confusing!

Mr Rusty · Post by **Mr Rusty** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:05 pm

Twin wrote:
VictoriaS wrote:The bad news is...this has been addressed...and BIA have said that those given removal notices whilst they are about to leave voluntarily are still stuffed for 10 years like everyone else...

...sorry guys.

Victoria
Probably the worst news of my life!

How did they explain those who leave voluntarily on public funds, then? Does it mean that those didn't leave after 28 and calls the HO for assistance to leave only gets 5 years? Is it really possible for the HO to pay their air fare and not issue them with a removal notice?

Very confusing!

I guess they're thinking of those who take the Assisted Voluntary Repatriation route.

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:14 pm

Mr Rusty wrote:
Twin wrote:
VictoriaS wrote:The bad news is...this has been addressed...and BIA have said that those given removal notices whilst they are about to leave voluntarily are still stuffed for 10 years like everyone else...

...sorry guys.

Victoria
Probably the worst news of my life!

How did they explain those who leave voluntarily on public funds, then? Does it mean that those didn't leave after 28 and calls the HO for assistance to leave only gets 5 years? Is it really possible for the HO to pay their air fare and not issue them with a removal notice?

Very confusing!
I guess they're thinking of those who take the Assisted Voluntary Repatriation route.

Hmm...seems like it to me too.

So who are those that get a 1 year ban then?

I guess it would be those that after overstaying their 28 days grace, managed to slip out without coming to the attention of an immigration officer.

thelastman · Post by **thelastman** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:26 pm

Absolutely not fair. Please consider this situation;
If an illegal entrant was thinking of leaving voluntarily at his own expence but for the purpose of applying at the home country for Entry clearance as spouse of a UK citizen. Does the ban still apply. the ban seems it can be anything from 1-5 years depending how lucky you are when leaving. might have to leave illegally as well so as to not leave any record. will they expect me to live at least a year without my partner? ( not gonna happen)
seem its better to stay for two more years and apply for a 14 years rule.
In a way they are encouraging rule breakers to stay and avoid trying to document themseves. Are they not suppose to be encouraging people to become legal so they know who is in the country, not force them into hiding by this harsh punishments.
Please reply.....

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:46 pm

These changes do not comply with the European convention in my eyes. Being kept away from one's family will clearly breach article 8 of the convention. So I will suspect that a lot of these cases could be won under Human Rights?

But didn't I read sometime ago that HO are considering scraping appeals for certain categories? (Please don't quote me, i'm not sure).

What interests me particularly is the category of 'Persons Exercising Rights to a child Resident In the UK' where a court order states clearly that you have residence order which can only be exercised in the UK. Would the ECO just say: "surd it! You overstayed so you lose your right to be with your child, so I don't care about no court order"?

Can this ban really work in all visa category?

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:51 pm

Twin wrote: What interests me particularly is the category of 'Persons Exercising Rights to a child Resident In the UK' where a court order states clearly that you have residence order which can only be exercised in the UK. Would the ECO just say: "surd it! You overstayed so you lose your right to be with your child, so I don't care about no court order"?

That is a BRILLIANT point. I am going to see if I can get a response.

Victoria

missbenz5474 · Post by **missbenz5474** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:56 pm

can someone please explain to me what that is ie person exercising rights to a child residnet in the uk........is this only for parents whos relationship is over?

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:50 pm

thelastman wrote:Absolutely not fair. Please consider this situation;
If an illegal entrant was thinking of leaving voluntarily at his own expence but for the purpose of applying at the home country for Entry clearance as spouse of a UK citizen. Does the ban still apply. the ban seems it can be anything from 1-5 years depending how lucky you are when leaving. might have to leave illegally as well so as to not leave any record. will they expect me to live at least a year without my partner? ( not gonna happen)
seem its better to stay for two more years and apply for a 14 years rule.
In a way they are encouraging rule breakers to stay and avoid trying to document themseves. Are they not suppose to be encouraging people to become legal so they know who is in the country, not force them into hiding by this harsh punishments.
Please reply.....

If you have two more years to meet the 14 years rule why then are you considering returning home? Is it because you wouldn't be able to work or get on with life? I know the feeling. Ideally, it would have been most appropriate to return home and apply for entry clearance as this shouldn't take more than 6 months but giving this new changes, one isn't so sure.

If you stay for the 14 years rule (Let's hope they don't change the conditions of that or remove it totally) you could be looking at up to 3 yrs or more to become legalised.

If you return home, you could be affected by the 1 year ban which if lets face it, could be the amount of time you could be home even without the ban. Why? There is no guarantee that your application would have succeeded without a ban (lets say you don't meet all the requirements), so if you make an appeal you'd be waiting some 7 months before hearing so effectively, with or without a ban you could be home for a year anyway.

It's your choice.

I hope I haven't confused you even further.

I'm sure the gurus will be able to advise further or correct me where i'm wrong.

VictoriaS · Post by **VictoriaS** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:58 pm

Is the 14 year rule still going to apply, whent he changes to the general grounds of refusal will also apply to in-country applications for leave to remain?

I just don't know.

Victoria

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:17 pm

VictoriaS wrote:Is the 14 year rule still going to apply, whent he changes to the general grounds of refusal will also apply to in-country applications for leave to remain?

I just don't know.

Victoria

I think you're right, Victoria.

Here's an extract fromm Gherson:

What were not expected are the changes to the â€œGeneral grounds for refusalâ€

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:22 pm

VictoriaS wrote:Is the 14 year rule still going to apply, whent he changes to the general grounds of refusal will also apply to in-country applications for leave to remain?

I just don't know.

Victoria

Which also means that the concessions i.e DP/069/99 and DP3/96 will be made redundant too!

Now we're getting perspective on things! This is harsh reality!

Twin · Post by **Twin** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:29 pm

thelastman wrote:Absolutely not fair. Please consider this situation;
If an illegal entrant was thinking of leaving voluntarily at his own expence but for the purpose of applying at the home country for Entry clearance as spouse of a UK citizen. Does the ban still apply. the ban seems it can be anything from 1-5 years depending how lucky you are when leaving. might have to leave illegally as well so as to not leave any record. will they expect me to live at least a year without my partner? ( not gonna happen)
seem its better to stay for two more years and apply for a 14 years rule.
In a way they are encouraging rule breakers to stay and avoid trying to document themseves. Are they not suppose to be encouraging people to become legal so they know who is in the country, not force them into hiding by this harsh punishments.
Please reply.....

Maybe, just maybe (please I emphasise on "maybe" as I don't want some of the gurus to scold me for giving wrong advise), if you return home on a Travel Certificate, you could return after a year. I guess if you don't have a passport then the Immigration officer cannot serve you a removal notice on a TC (or can he?).

Either way, remove the thought of being back in less than a year from your mind. Except of course you're not going to claim having met your wife/fiancee in the UK which I wouldn't advise as you're likely to be caught in a lie and that would be a 10 years ban if caught for deception.

I think right now, you're lucky as you haven't had any form of removal notice served on you. If you manage to leave Heathrow without any hiccups then even better.

Good Luck.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

New 'blacklist' periods for overstayers