5 year ILR and 4 year HSMP ?

[NationOne]

If HSMP is 1+3 years and it takes 5 years to get ILR, how will this work out?

Does the new rule apply retrospectively to all HSMP applicants who have entered the UK?

Will FLR(IED) give me 4 years instead of 3?

What about all those who have already got their FLR(IED) for 3 years?

[John]

I don't think we have more detail than is giving by the file downloadable from :-

Topic : Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain

[EJ]

I can't see how they can change legislation retrospectively. You will still get ILR after 4 years if you have entered the UK under the currennt HSMP legislation. Even the invite letter after the renewal invites one to apply for ILR at the end of the three years.

[hsmphopeful]

i believe the point which is missed here is that you can apply for FLR(IED) more than once. You don't have to apply for ILR. So in the worst case we will have to apply twice for FLR(IED) and then upon completion of 5 years, for ILR.

[EJ]

I don't believe I missed the point about the 4 years issue. The point is the HSMP was issued with a promise of ILR after 4 years, they cannot renege on that promise.

I realise most out of country applicants will have to apply a second time for FLR, but still the 4 year rule should apply.

[Alagomeji]

They can. And they can give you the option (like the one they already gave the WHM people) to be assessed under the new scheme, or to withdraw your application.

[John]

I can't see how they can change legislation retrospectively

Well they can if only because no Government can bind itself for the future. That is, MPs in say 2005 can't stop MPs in say 2008 passing whatever law they want.

There are lots of instances of retrospective changes in recent years. For example, someone granted a fiancé(e) visa in say March 2003, on the understand that they would come to the UK and get married and then apply for a one-year spouse visa .... the spouse visa issued in April 2003 or later would have been of two years duration, with therefore a knock-on effect of when ILR could be applied for. (Spouse visas issued on or after 1st April 2003 are of two years duration rather than one year that applied up to 31st March 2003.)

Or the person granted a spouse visa in say June 2003 who understands that the ILR visa application in the UK in May or June 2005 will be free ... is now facing an application fee of £335 by post or £500 in person at a PEO. (In-UK visa fees introduced as from 1st August 2003.)

But the changes mentioned above do not necessarily lead to the matter being totally retrospective. That is, someone already possessing a one-year spouse visa in their passport as at April 2003 was still entitled to apply for ILR just before its expiry. They were not forced to wait a further year, or get a one year extension to their spouse visa, even though new spouse visas issued from April 2003 were of two years duration.

Looking at the above history shows that we should necessarily assume exactly what will happen on the move from four years to five years for WP/HSMP holders going for ILR. For example, it is possible that anyone already with a three year extension visa in their passport will be allowed to apply for ILR near its expiry, but as from a certain date any newly-issued extensions will be of four years duration rather than three years.

We simply do not have the needed detail at the moment, and therefore cannot assume anything.

[Chess]

For example, it is possible that anyone already with a three year extension visa in their passport will be allowed to apply for ILR near its expiry, but as from a certain date any newly-issued extensions will be of four years duration rather than three years.

That would be another really stupid move by HO as applications would not have been considered on an equittable basis. As many people have jumped the queues based on Urgent Traetment

If they specify what cut - off date that would be then - urgent treatment forms will start flying in.


Any how, first things first. The fee increases and the 5 -year plan has to be approved by Parliament. I dont know how they managed to rush through the change of rules for WHM.


I think the 5 yr plan will start if Labour wins the next election. Because you cant expect other parties to follow what Labour pledges

[John]

I don't know how they managed to rush through the change of rules for WHM.

At least that bit is easy ... they simply changed the immigration rules. In accordance with the way the relevant Act of Parliament is written, the Government of the day simply needs to lay a copy of the changes to the immigration rules in each of the houses of Parliament.

Have a look at :-

Immigration Rule changes - February 2005

So other changes, they will also simply require a change to the immigration rules, and not necessarily with a lot of notice. That is, if this is the way they want to play it, they might announce that with effect from the next day any WP/HSMP extension visa will be of four years duration rather than three.

Indeed giving a lot of notice as to when such a change will come in would provoke a lot of urgent applications, so best if very little notice is given about any such change. (Don't read into this any thought that I would approve of any such change, because I don't. Simply describing the mechanics as to how it might be introduced.)

[Chess]

So other changes, they will also simply require a change to the immigration rules, and not necessarily with a lot of notice. That is, if this is the way they want to play it, they might announce that with effect from the next day any WP/HSMP extension visa will be of four years duration rather than three.

Rushing for urgent treatment would not help. Because on the other hand they could say that from 2006 anyone applying for ILR based on employment should have been in the UK for 5 years. Therefore anyone with a WP/HSMP who had been given extension for 3 years should apply for 'another' extension to meet the shortfall.


It is all guess work and you canot really tell the future

If (God Forbid) the BNP (far right British National Party) won the next General Election then all Immigrants would be repatriated immedeately

[John]

Therefore anyone with a WP/HSMP who had been given extension for 3 years should apply for 'another' extension to meet the shortfall.

Of course that cannot be ruled out but I think there is a precedent that the Government would probably work to.

Before 1st April 2003 spouse visas were of one year duration. From that date they were issued for two years. The knock-on effect of that was to delay such spouse visa holders applying for ILR.

But holders of already-issued one-year spouse visas did not need to apply for a further one year spouse visa. They could still apply for their ILR near the end of their one year spouse visa.

And so I suspect that those already with three-year WP/HSMP extension visas will not need to apply for a one year extension. But as from a certain date all new extension visas will be for four years.

Remember this is a five year plan. My thought about how this will work is entirely consistent with such a time-scale.

[Rog]

I recently had a circular from BNP titled 'Stop Immigration' stuck up my letter slot. The 2 page circular contained their views which were expressing their hatred for all immigrants and for returning UK to being a white populated country once more. They have clearly stated that if they come to power all immigration would stop and exisiting immigrants even with ILR status would be 'encouraged' to leave the UK. Here the scary part is that they only are opposed to non white immigration, so it would effect Asian and African origin people only. They have stated that immigrants are preferred to locals in jobs whereas the truth is the opposite. Hopefully in a developed country such fundamentalists would not come to power.

[MWazir]

BNP has always been known for its its extereme views. Their beliefs go much further and are more radical than what they publish. This was even exposed by a BBC undercover journalist.

Thankfully for this country, they are not very popular and most people just ignore them. Interestingly the odd seats that they manage to win invariably turns out to be some of the most economically backward blocks in the country. Such kind of politics thrives on poverty and illetracy.

[Sher]

If the UK aspires to be a new 'knowledge' economy, it will have to replenish as well as take care of its greying population (also read, strain on retirement payouts). In addition, it will have to infuse deficit skills into the economy.

As such, the UK migration programme, a la the US and the Canadian ones in the early days, will have to remain friendly for some time to come. It may choose to sound stern for the benefit of an unduly, frightened native population (the ranks of which will be suprisingly swelled by the present day immigrants and tomorrow's citizens )